Posted on 11/18/2001 9:58:51 AM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I haven't scrolled down to read any answers past this point yet, but the original reason for a recount was "the butterfly ballots [also used by Daley's Chicago]were so confusing." When that was proven bogus, it was then "all the votes didn't get counted." After trying to throw out the military votes and only recount four heavily Democratic counties, this reason was exposed as fraudulent, also.
Well, now, I guess that says it all, doesn't it?
I thought I caught a whiff of some Bill Kristol-esque gripe wipe in your orignial post. Now there's a fellow thoughly enamored of himself pining for the least scintilla of relevance as he snivles away in his presumed self-importance to current debate.
And what is McCain after-all but a money grubbing member of the infamous Keating Five who couldn't control his own appetite for campaign cash, whose self-flagellating catharsis involves taking away every citizen's right to influence an election with $ contributions, while sucking up to democrats in the process.
"...Lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from the electorate, for mine is the Presidency (usurped), and the White House, and the Power forever!!! AMEN. (Ok, maybe for at least 4 years, but I WILL have it one these days....just you wait!!!)
Surely you don't wish to be numbered amongst McCain's and Kristol's lot of malcontented losers and pretenders to conservatism, do you?
How dare you post this and make me read it! 8-)
Oh hogwash. And Cris if you are lurking today--BALONEY, CRUD-BUCKETS and PHOOOOEY. That line is a LIE. Anyone who believes this is nuts. Was Crissy, by any chance, including the overseas votes in this assumption. There was a very good reason Gore only wanted the heavily dem counties, counted. That is where all the efforts went into CHEATING. Imho, anyway.
The 2 major Party Politic in this Country have long had controlling interest in how votes are counted, how they are tabulated, and how, and who handles those votes, as well as what type of security measures voting has, or has had.
I think we can agree that if the outcomes of National Election results are so important, then why is it not mandated that these ballots be handled by a prescribed, trusted, security force, other than Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous that drives them in their mini-van somewhere else to be counted?
Why is something so obviously important to the entire nation treated like grocery store coupons?
But that misses the point of why the Republicans opposed the recount. The recount would not have been conducted by this consortium; rather, it would have been conducted by precinct workers, and it is entirely possible (probable, in fact), that they would have come up with different totals. The idea that was can know today what an actual recount would have shown is simply wrong.
Thinkin' about moving on over to FNC, are ya?
I think it's safe to say that every single eligible voter who considered themselves conservative or Republican or just plain tired of Clinton/Gore came out to vote a year ago for GWB. And what happened? A weak Democrat running an even weaker campaign got almost 600,000 more votes than he did.
Yes, GWB won the electoral vote fair and square. But I read a few months ago (sorry, don't have the link, I know, I know) that Karl Rove's own internal polling showed that if current trends continue into 2004, GWB will lose the popular vote by three to four million votes.
Notice that's "if current trends continue." They don't have to by any means, but if they do, the denial you mention will be the culprit, not ballot-stuffing or dirty tricks.
Flame on, dudes!
George W. Bush thought he would lose the limited recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court, so the Republican presidential candidate got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it. The result was a victory in the Electoral College that gave Al Gore backers reason to question Bush's legitimacy.
The courtroom battles were started by the Gore forces and Bush answered as any candidate should...end of story.
Last week we discovered the irony in this game-playing. A ballot-by-ballot analysis by a consortium of newspapers shows that Bush would have won the election clean if he'd let Florida go ahead with the partial recount that Gore wanted.
He wasn't playing games...Gore was. The media recounts are hogwash of process.
Gore made an equally fatal mistake. The Democratic candidate sought a recount of only four counties -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- where he expected to pick up votes.
The recounts had to be based on legal reasons and were then no state-wide recount was legal under FL law, where was Mathews during all this?
Had Gore insisted on recounts throughout the entire state, the analysis shows him winning both Florida and the presidency.
"Insistance" was not in accordance with "law". Actually, if a recount had followed state proceedures, Bush would have won. It is only when wishful thinking and convoluted standards are applied that one out of a hundred outcomes shows to some media sense that they have an excuse to say Gore "would have"...In his dreams.
So all this recounting was not in vain after all. While it doesn't change the results of the 2000 election, it teaches valuable lessons about politics. Sometimes playing it cute is the most costly strategy of all. Sometimes playing it straight is not only the right thing to do, but the winning strategy.
The media lost....they played it "cutest"
Both candidates paid for choosing cute over straight.
Gore's strategy cost him immesurably more than Bush's cost him in general approval. Gore's supporters never rallied because they knew they had lost. Had Bush not gotten the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the limited recounts ordered by Florida's high court, he might have won the election by anywhere from 225 to 495 votes. Even diehard Democrats would have been forced to concede his victory
And once Bush won that "partial recount," what on earth makes Matthews think Gore would then have stopped his efforts to overturn the election?
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.