BIG NEWS reported in The Washington Post today, June 23, 2002: Jeb Bush did NOT steal Election 2000

The Washington Post link (no excerpts) ^ | June 23, 2002 | summer; others linked

[summer]

BIG NEWS HERE, folks!

Today, June 23, 2002, The Washington Post published a news article titled:"To the White House, by Way of the Everglades." To read the article, click HERE.

Jeb Bush did not 'steal' any election - and, Al Gore LOST Florida DUE TO GORE'S REFUSAL TO OPPOSE A PROPOSED NEW [LUCRATIVE] AIRPORT ON FEDERAL LAND LOCATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE FL EVERGLADES.

Jeb Bush did not 'steal' any election - and, Al Gore LOST Florida DUE TO GORE'S REFUSAL TO OPPOSE A PROPOSED NEW [LUCRATIVE] AIRPORT ON FEDERAL LAND LOCATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE FL EVERGLADES.

[summer]

LOL! Oops! Reed's a "conservationist" and not necessarily a "conservative" (though he might be both)! Sorry! Well, you can scream about numbers and live and die by them! I prefer to LOL at this WP article -- and the fact it's only 1-1/2 years late.... ROTFLMAO.... :)

[summer]

OK, Perhaps you're right - like many liberal news media said, maybe Gore won, maybe Jeb stole the election. But my claim is correct here: people vote on local issues. Argue all you want with yourself on that one -- you'll never win. Like I said: good thing you're not trying to make a living as a political strategist! Thanks for your posts! :)

[summer]

Here is the link about Dick Morris' book: Al Gore and Dick Morris turn the spotlight on: the Nader voters

Not that I think you'll read it, but, I did say I would post it.

BTW, I enjoyed sparring with you, and I hope you are not upset in any way. Maybe we can agree on two things:

(1) Gore lost FL, WV and TN.

(2) Gore must have made some bad decisions and mistakes to lose those three states.

Now, why exactly Gore lost WV and TN, I don't really know. But, maybe someone on this forum from WV and someone else from TN could add some insight.

As to FL, since I am here in FL, I can offer my opinion on FL. And, I did. In this editorial. You can disagree. And, you did. So, while we disagree on details, such as what issues had more of an impact on FL voters, well, I can still thank you for taking the time to post. Thank you. :)

[gitmo]

This was a big deal for Florida environmentalists. The Bush team helped protect a unique ecosystem. Gore helped damage the same unique ecosystem.

The election came down to the wire, nationally and in Florida. It's true that had Gore carried his home state of TN, he could have taken the election. However, he wasn't really close in TN.

But he was unbelievably close in Florida. And probably, this issue could have turned the tide. I actually think the Bush lead would have been greater if the news media hadn't prematurely declared Gore the winner in Florida. The polls in the panhandle became dead after that declaration. And that is Bush territory.

I imagine one could find lots of examples of things the Gore camp could have done to garner a few hundred votes in Florida. And that's all it takes.

GREAT THREAD, SUMMER! I ALWAYS LOOK FOR YOUR POSTS.

[summer]

And, as I reread the above link in my post #83, I think what this Washington Post article represents may just be a decision by Al Gore to do more to reach out to people who did not support him in 2000. And, to do more, he first must confront what happened in FL.

This WP article states that his people and the environmental groups now agree on this: Al Gore lost the election, and his loss involved the proposed commercial airport in the Everglades issue. Others can disagree. But, Al Gore's people and the FL environmentalists reportedly now agree. They have not appeared to me to agree in a long time.

Will this help Dem candidates for FL gov in 2002? Will it help Dems in 2004?

I am sure it is already too late for Dems in 2002 in FL. And, I have a feeling it is too late for Al Gore in 2004 in FL.

[Lancey Howard]

I must confess I do not consider myself a political junkie, nor have I ever been one

Ha! Yeah, sure.
(Sneaks up on you, doesn't it?)

[summer]

gitmo, I so enjoyed reading every word of your post #84. Thanks for the interesting comments you added to this thread -- and thank you very much for your kind words to me! A big BTTT to YOU! :)

[summer]

(Sneaks up on you, doesn't it?)

WOW! Gosh! It sure does! LOL! :)!!!

[summer]

Jeb and GW sign the historic FL Everglades
Restoration pact, Jan 2002.

Bush brothers agree: Ecosystem comes first
[Jeb and GW win praise from FL voters on Everglades]

[summer]

An update for you on this matter, in post #89. FYI. :)

[Friedrich Hayek]

OK, Perhaps you're right - like many liberal news media said, maybe Gore won, maybe Jeb stole the election. But my claim is correct here: people vote on local issues. Argue all you want with yourself on that one -- you'll never win

Hey, I'm from Tip O'Neill's district, so I've heard the theory that "all elections are local" all my life. Honestly, I've never believed it. Republicans would never win an election if that were true. Speaking personally, I vote for a President based upon overriding national questions of Peace and Prosperity, not on whether he will put a new highway ( or airport) in my hometown. I'd like to think I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

You seem beholden to the theory that either a) Jeb Bush stole the election or b) Gore lost because of the Everglades airport issue. I'm suggesting a third solution: Gore lost because more people agreed with George Bush on the major issues.

[Tribune7]

Thanks for the ping, summer.

[summer]

I'm suggesting a third solution: Gore lost because more people agreed with George Bush on the major issues.

Well, in a state like FL -- where 500+ votes was the margin of win -- your suggestion, although it sounds good at first, suddenly sounds very weak, very quickly.

Also, I am not hung up on any "theft" of election concept -- but, you see, I am in FL, where that concept is one the Dem Party has certainly tried to sell here in this state, even quite recently, with Alec Baldwin coming to FL.

Finally, I am not willing to conclude by saying: 'I have to be right and you have to be wrong.' Not at all -- not when it comes to such a complex question as trying to determine the reason each and every voter voted the way he or she did.

In my all my posts here on this subject, I merely wanted to point out: there were local issues here in FL involving federal land, and such events were of great concern to many voters here. (Maybe not to you -- and, I can understand that too, as you're not here in FL.)

Finally, one thought to consider: In a close race, "more people" does not win a national election in this country. However, "more states" will win it.

Thank you for taking the time to politely respond. I truly enjoyed chatting with you, and hope something I posted somewhere made you chuckle. :)

[summer]

My pleasure, Tribune7. :)

[summer]

Re my post #89 -- If you have the time, you might want to read that article. Because then, finally, you might realize for the first time the issue which concerned people here. In fact, the president, GW, issued a statement on it:

The president issued a statement saying, "The restoration of this ecosystem is a priority for my administration, as well as for Gov. Bush." The White House also released a "fact sheet," saying the restoration, while serving the 'Glades first, will still benefit those who live around them.

"When fully implemented, it will provide the region with an additional 1.7 billion gallons of fresh water per day, ensuring an expanded water supply to meet the growing needs of South Florida communities and farms," the White House said.

FL, FYI, has suffered from droughts in the past. People in FL would rather have more water than another commercial airport. Al Gore did not appear to understand that during Election 2000. But, FL's governor, and his brother the president, are quick learners which, BTW, is very fortunate for the people of this state.

[summer]

AmishDude, Maybe what partly motivated this article was Gore's desire to come up with an excuse for his silence to FL voters in Election 2000 -- and see if that excuse sells.

It doesn't sell to me. Come November, when I vote, I will still remember it was NO THANKS to any Dem local, state or national leader that FL people won on an important environmental issue.

Instead, it was thanks to the GOP gov and his GOP brother. Yes, big surprise, but true. And, they got the deal done before the 20 months time it took Gore to figure out what excuses he would float to voters in this article.

IMO, that 1996-2001 report on the airport proposal from the Army was obviously delayed for years, for reasons Gore never intends to explain. But, thankfully, Gore lost in 2000. Otherwise we would have had a new commercial airport in the Everglades by now.

[summer]

Here's Gore's bogus reason: I was waiting for an analysis that took from 1996 to four days before Clinton left office.

My response is this: Gee, that really sounds like some delay of an "analysis" report you're waiting on, Al... You'd think someone high up, like maybe the president if you know him, or the vice president if that happens to be you, could get the analysis done before Election 2000. I guess not....

And, here's Gore's published excuse, for his 20 month+ silence to FL voters on this matter, from the WP article -- and this is the first time he has ever offered any excuse to my knowledge:

"Gore's closest allies say he stayed mum on principle: If he had come out strong before the analysis was done, the analysis might have been challenged in court as a White House sham. Other former Gore aides attribute the decision to a mix of principle, politics and Gore's natural inclination to seek middle ground."

"mum on principle" -- LOL... Al, you should have GOTTEN THE ANALYSIS DONE BEFORE ELECTION 2000 'ON PRINCIPLE.' The people in FL want to know what's up with this issue, and they are NOT staying 'mum' on it here in FL!

OK, I'm done! Thanks, AmishDude. :)

[AmishDude]

Damage control. Very very much damage control. I also think the theme for 2004 will be: "Don't leave the reservation, you Greenies caused us to lose last time."

Unfortunately for the Dems, GW has a big lead and the activists will feel even safer voting for Nader or whomever the principled candidate will be. And then, I hope, we'll see a major split in the party.

[dalebert]

Thanks for the ping. Just what is the agenda of the press in this country? Why do they have an agenda at all? Is it the job of the press to withold truth, embelish it, and at times lie to put forth their own agenda or politics? Or are they just simply for sale?

[summer]

Damage control. Very very much damage control.

Exactly. And, WAY TOO LATE! As the damage has already been done...