Posted on 02/23/2002 7:57:44 PM PST by Dan Day
At the site www.digitaldocumentaries.com, Natham Bramble has posted a (RealVideo) documentary video he made of protesters at President Bush's inauguration.
The video can be viewed at http://www.digitalvideodocumentaries.com/dv_protest.html
His comments from that web page:
Protests of the 2001 InaugurationOn this forum page, he invites comments:January - 2001
The debacle surrounding the Presidential election of 2000 will undoubtedly be spoken about, reported on, and analyzed for many years to come. All the mistakes and controversy surrounding the outcome has placed a lot of doubt on the legitimacy of George Bush's right to the title President of the United States of America. Bush's choices for his staff and cabinet appointments have ushered in the new American regime of Republican rule, which has also generated a lot of anger and frustration among those who have become used to a more liberal government in President Clinton and his staff.
People came from all over the country to witness the swearing in of America's 43rd president, including me and a few of my friends to help me make this short film. Many came to voice their anger about every controversial issue you can think of. Many were protesting the outcome of the election, shouting about the Supreme Court's decision to get involved, others included women's rights organizations, environmental issues, corporate influence in the government, and many other things.
Many supporters of George Bush were also present, shouting back at the protesters. Although, the Bush supporters weren't as vocal and active in voicing their opinion. I saw very few signs in support of the new president.
It was cold and raining and security was tight, but I was able to get enough interviews with people to make this short online documentary about the protests that were going on during the inauguration.
A new film is up on the site. It’s a documentary in which I interview some of the people who were protesting during the 2001 Presidential Inauguration of George W. Bush. Please check it out and I’d love to hear any feedback you might have.
He's not responsible for the views of the protesters, but he is responsible for whatever artistic/journalistic choices he made while producing the video.
The first thing I notice is that when speaking of President Bush's cabinet, the author refers to it as a "regime of Republican rule."
When speaking of Clinton, however, he refers to it as " President Clinton and his staff".
This tells me all I need to know about the writers motives for this so called "documentary". It certainly will not be an objective view of events.
I beg to differ with him also about the importance of the aftermath of the election in view of Sept 11th. Americans have more on their minds now. At least those with any sort of sense at all do.
I've watched the NRA for years now, and I'm amazed at how far off base you are here.
While it's true that the NRA makes the mistake of often backing GOP candidates even when that candidate is more anti-gun than his Democratic opponent, they're hardly "a political tool of the GOP" (just watch how often they blast a Republican for introducing any anti-gun legislation), nor is it in any way accurate to say that that is "all" they are. You're clearly ignorant of the many activities that the NRA engages in which has nothing to do with GOP politics, or politics period.
At any time during any count or recount did Al Gore lead in Florida?
Your video just seems like a bunch of sore losers.
Gore was the one who challenged the voting process in Court when no other has done so before. It was Gore who caused this Country to doubt the processes and systems which have served it for years.
Did you read the US Supreme Court order? They found that any counting other than by machine of machine ballots was in violation of the 14th amendment.
"Also, I’ve seen several of the reported “confusing” ballets that were being used in Florida and as a person who has studied user interfaces I could certainly see why people were getting confused."
Did you know that it was a Democrat who designed those supposed confusing ballots? Did you know that those supposed confusing ballots were publicized in the paper and public comments and input was requested before a Democrat official decided to use it as an official ballot?
"Add to that the controversy over minorities being turned away at voting centers ..."
Did you know that Civil Service Commission looked into this matter and found that there was no evidence to support that claim?
" ... something about overseas military votes being ignored or lost or whatever it was, I can’t remember, leads me to think that the whole voting process was faulty."
Did you know that the State of Florida had previously entered into a consent agreement because the Federal Gov't had found that the military vote wasn't being counted properly and that under the direction of the Florida Secty of State, Katherine Harris, the military vote as she outline was to be counted properly but that Al Gore's campaigned intervened in all fifty something counties and pressured those counties to then again toss out military votes that should have been counted? I mean really, after all this "count every vote" coming out of Gore's mouth and such to then systematically develop a plan to disinfranchise the military vote was hypocritical and against one's civil right don't you think?
You're basically arguing with yourself. I say watch the video or don't watch the video, and move on.
Did you know that in 18 of 67 counties the vote was never recounted even once? Even the automatic recount mandated by law was never performed. We're talking about 1.58 million votes here.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3698-2001May31.html
Did you know that the Civil Rights Commission you mentioned earlier actually found the exact opposite results of what you posted? Here's the report itself. Read it and make up your own mind about what it says.
http://www.washin gtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm
Here's the second paragraph, in case you can't be bothered:
"Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were wrongfully purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency."
Did you know that the GOP worked to include clearly illegal absentee ballots in Republican counties, some of them up to six days late, while striving to exclude late absentee ballots from Democratic counties? Gore never tried to disenfranchise the military. He never objected to a single military ballot that was legally cast. He should have done more to oppose the clear GOP ballot fraud in Republican counties. Read this link, and be sure to check the scans of late ballots. Disbelieve your own eyes if you wish, but this is documented history.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/o npolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm
Did you know that the Supreme Court decision which installed Bush as president was so transparently faulty, even to those who wrote it, that they included a clause saying that Bush vs. Gore could never be used as a precedent for any future case? No wonder no one wanted to sign their name to it.
Did you know that the NORC study showed that in any state-wide recount, using ANY standard, Al Gore won?
I'll spell it out for you:
-PREVAILING STANDARD: County election officials told Florida journalists how they would define votes if required to do a recount and in this scenario the majority standard was imposed statewide. In punch-card counties, ballots with at least one corner of a chad detached counted as votes. In optical scan counties, where voters are required to fill in blanks on a paper ballot - like on a standardized test - ballots with any affirmative marks counted. That means a vote counted even if the oval was not completely filled in or a candidate's name was circled or underlined; so did ballots on which a voter correctly filled in the oval and also wrote the same candidate's name in the space for write-ins.
Result: Gore ahead by 60 votes.
-TWO-CORNER STANDARD: At least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as a vote, a position that had been argued, at times, by Bush supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.
Result: Gore ahead by 105 votes.
-MOST INCLUSIVE: Ballots with dimpled chads count as votes, an argument often made by Gore supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.
Result: Gore ahead by 107 votes.
-LEAST INCLUSIVE: Only cleanly punched chads count as valid votes. For optical scan, only fully filled ovals and those ballots on which a voter filled in the oval and wrote in the candidate's name, too.
Result: Gore ahead by 115 votes.
-COUNTY-by-COUNTY: Drawn from the county election officials. It accepts results from Broward and Volusia counties because those counties completed hand counts that were included in state-certified election totals. For those counties that said they would not count overvotes, relies on prevailing standard.
Result: Gore ahead by 171 votes.
-PALM BEACH STANDARD: Based on a standard Palm Beach election officials briefly used, this counts dimpled chads as valid votes if a pattern of dimpled chads exists elsewhere on the same ballot. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.
Result: Gore ahead by 42 votes.
Note that these counts INCLUDE the illegal absentee ballots from Republican counties. Even with these clearly inadmissable ballots, Gore wins. Further, they don't include the hundreds of ballots where people punched for Gore and then wrote "Gore" in the write-in field due to ambiguous instructions. These ballots, where the will of the voter could not be clearer, were not included.
To put in another way: if you count all the votes, even with various GOP scams added in, Gore wins. If you don't count all the votes, Bush wins. It's as simple as that.
What does this mean? It means the joker currently sitting in the Oval Office is not a legitimate president. It means what happened last year was basically a coup. If you think people are going to just forget about the subversion of democracy in the world's greatest country you're guaranteed to be disappointed. I understand wanting your side to win, but I don't understand trampling the constitution and destroying democracy to do it. I guess the ideals you Freepers claim to support -- liberty, law, democracy, fairness -- are just meaningless words if they stand between you and power. Now that you've revealed your true nature, don't expect the rest of us to ever forget it.
The article stated they checked their results. If that didn't meet statutory requirements don't you think Al Gore's lawyers would have pointed that out in some legal brief before any one of a myriad of courts?
"Did you know that the Civil Rights Commission you mentioned earlier actually found the exact opposite results of what you posted? Here's the report itself. Read it and make up your own mind about what it says."
" ... it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency."
Did you read where the report stated it is impossible to determine... That tells me that they couldn't find any evidence to support the argument.
"Did you know that the GOP worked to include clearly illegal absentee ballots in Republican counties, some of them up to six days late, while striving to exclude late absentee ballots from Democratic counties? Gore never tried to disenfranchise the military. He never objected to a single military ballot that was legally cast. He should have done more to oppose the clear GOP ballot fraud in Republican counties. Read this link, and be sure to check the scans of late ballots. Disbelieve your own eyes if you wish, but this is documented history."
If that was true why did some lawyer from Al Gore's campaign mail out a letter of instructions to those counties on how to count military ballots, in apparent conflict with Florida's consent agreement with the Fed's?
"Did you know that the Supreme Court decision which installed Bush as president was so transparently faulty, even to those who wrote it, that they included a clause saying that Bush vs. Gore could never be used as a precedent for any future case? No wonder no one wanted to sign their name to it."
What does that prove? Maybe it had to do with the fact that no one before Gore tried to count votes in violation of the 14th amendment?
"Did you know that the NORC study showed that in any state-wide recount, using ANY standard, Al Gore won?"
Using any standard would have been in violation of the 14th amendment though wouldn't it? The study also stated that the only way Gore would have won would be to count overvotes which have never been counted before.
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.