The Final Word? New documents raise questions about news media’s findings on the 2000 presidential

Newsweek ^ | Dec 3 issue | By Michael Isikoff

[daler]

This story is really becoming rather tiresome.

I presume (of course), that you're fully in favor of counting all overvotes in Missouri, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Iowa, and of launching a full investigation into any allegations of voter fraud.

Or could it be, as in the Democrat cherrypicking of only liberal counties in FL, and the tossing of military ballots, that you propose we recount only those votes which might benefit Gore?

Get a life. It's over.

And, damn...is the country ever the better for it.

[cksharks]

Gore or Bush aint my leader: Sounds like the taliban might just be what your looking for!

[Brilliant]

Why don't the Dems just appoint Gore President for life, and we won't have to deal with this again?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I contacted Miss Cleo and found out unequivocally that Bob Marley was the real winner of the election.

There was a lot of blather about the possibility of Florida's failing to cast its Electoral Votes--and the question was whether the majority required would have logically been reduced by half of Florida's total. But that idea is illogical. First, because the Florida Legislature never decided not to cast electoral votes. And second, because of the reductio ad adsurdum effect: If Florida might fail to cast EVs, perhaps it could happen to California? Texas? New York?

Suppose it happened to ALL the states, what then? The intent of the Constitution is clear: failure of any candidate to win an absolute majority of the EV's to which all states are entitled throws the election to the House of Representatives. Yet the absurd case of no state casting electoral votes would not yield that result if the majority criterion were commensurately reduced to zero; instead every native born American citizen over the age of 35, and not a felon would have enough electoral votes (zero) and accordingly all would simultaneously be elected PotUS. Excepting only Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, who are excluded from being elected to a third term . . .

[tubebender]

Correct me if I have this wrong. (and I know someone will) Were not the Bushies being pressured to insist on a complete state recount and the Bushies said no way?

[Sueann]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's the same old song and dance - IF we could have just counted these ILLEGAL ballots; IF we could have just counted those ILLEGAL ballots; IF we could have just had one more county; IF we could have recounted the whole state and not just a few counties. These people have IF'nd themselves to death to try to prove they won!! THEY LOST - AND THEY NEED TO GET OVER IT!!!!!

[cajungirl]

Anyone who thinks a recount of under or overvotes would have been done fairly and squarely is nuts. And there is an inherent bias in applying "standards" by individuals doing this. The only fair count is a machine count. This Florida vote was within a margin or error and no human endeavor would have been fool proof. Basically it was either a crapshoot or a machine count and I go with the machine count. The election was not a joke, it strained the system and the system held and today we are better for it.

[RichInOC]

Buggery...enough already.

[lawdude]

"No, there will never be a "final word" on this."

Yes. There has been. GWB is President of the US. End of discussion for any purpose other than wishful thinking by brain dead dems.