Skip to comments.
Statement by Alabama GOVERNOR-ELECT BOB RILEY (my title - Pound Sand Seigelman!)
Montgomery Advertiser Online ^
| 8 Nov 2002
| Bob Riley
Posted on 11/08/2002 3:55:57 PM PST by commish
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:12:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-133 next last
To: commish
Governor Riley has won, the voters have spoken.
21
posted on
11/08/2002 4:21:23 PM PST
by
Hila
To: commish
Well if Alabama law says that a close election is not a reason to have a recount (rather curious, because you'd think that a close election is the only reason you would want a recount in the first place), then I guess that is the way it is and I'm glad the good guy won. But that means if next time the bad guy wins by 43 votes or something in Alabama, we here won't have the right to bitch about it.
Personally, I'd like to see Riley win on a recount so that the 'Rats can't make hay of this on a national level.
To: Dog Gone
Siegelman demanded a recount Thursday. He pointed in particular to Baldwin County, where elections officials reduced his tally by about 7,000 votes late Tuesday -- enough to give Riley the victory. The county blamed a glitch in its computer system for the revision, but the first-term governor said the switch was made after poll workers left for the night.
PURE BALONEY! ONCE AGAIN I POST THE PROOF THAT NO VOTES WERE CHANGED :
Here is a photo of the "Offending" printout from Baldwin County Alabama. Notice it has Seigelman at 19070 votes
Now look at the top line - TOTAL BALLOTS CAST - 45,032
OK let's do some math - first from the printout
Seigelman 19,070
Sophocleus 937
Riley 31,052
Writin 119
Over 0
under 188
Giving us a total of 51,366 -- IMPOSSIBLE when total BALLOTS CAST is 45,032
Now Lets see what we get when we put in 12736 for Seigelman
Seigelman 12,736
Sophocleus 937
Riley 31,052
Writin 119
Over 0
under 188
GRAND TOTAL - 45,032 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST - 45,032
PROOF POSITIVE that all this was was a TABULATION ERROR on one printout.
YOU LOST DONE SINGLETERM!!!! GET OUT OF RILEY'S HOUSE!
23
posted on
11/08/2002 4:22:57 PM PST
by
commish
To: SamAdams76
"If Riley is sure he won, he wouldn't object to a recount. After all, Bush went along with a recount and he STILL WON. I agree that Siegleman made a huge tactical error in declaring victory too soon and stating that Riley should do the right thing and not ask for a recount. That is why I have no sympathy for Siegleman's position. But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close." I always thought following the law was the right thing to do...
To: SamAdams76
But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.No Sam, the right thing to do is follow the law. If they don't like the law, they can change it at a later date but for now Siegelman loses, that's Alabama state law.
25
posted on
11/08/2002 4:25:29 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Dog Gone
"``As of right now, no one is going to recount the votes in Baldwin County,'' he said." Baldwin county voted 69% Republican. Last election, they voted every elected Democrat in the whole county out of office. There are ZERO Democrats in the county government in Baldwin county.
Baldwin county is to Mobile what Marion county is to San Francisco except it is conservative and has the best beaches in the world.
26
posted on
11/08/2002 4:27:00 PM PST
by
blam
To: SamAdams76
Well if Alabama law says that a close election is not a reason to have a recount (rather curious, because you'd think that a close election is the only reason you would want a recount in the first place), then I guess that is the way it is and I'm glad the good guy won. But that means if next time the bad guy wins by 43 votes or something in Alabama, we here won't have the right to bitch about it. You are 100% correct. But, I think we can all rest assured that the Alabama Legislature will be drafting some new election laws this spring, and we will probably end up with an automatic recount law.
Personally, I think that is long overdue. As the article said, some of the laws being cited have been in exsistence since the early 1800's.
27
posted on
11/08/2002 4:27:35 PM PST
by
commish
To: PhiKapMom
That's right -- let's have a recount and not follow Alabama law -- what is a little law standing in the way! (sarcasm) Damn Republicans keep acting like the law means something.
To: commish
Why hasn't the county in question made a TV appearance to explain exactly what happened and how the original Siegleman numbers could not possibly be correct in the first place? Wouldn't that end this whole mess?
To: commish
Now Lets see what we get when we put in 12736 for SeigelmanHow'd you arrive at that number commish?
30
posted on
11/08/2002 4:29:48 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: SamAdams76
I accuse you, sir, of being logical.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Alabama changing this law in the near future.
To: SHKMAN1212; jwalsh07; Dog Gone
Okay, Okay, I get the point. Alabama law does not allow for an automatic recount in close elections. Listen, I'm glad Riley won. But this is a double-edged sword that can and will be used against us later by the 'Rats when it is our guy that loses a close election.
To: commish
The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is ROY MOORE. Unlike the Florida Supreme Court, the Alabama Supreme Court would never let anyone steal an election.
To: jwalsh07
12,736 is what the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TOTAL for Seigelman is from Baldwin County. The 19,070 got there when the computer creating the printout barfed somehow.
Baldwin county officials noticed the error - and did a FULL Recount of all the votes again - the second time the printout showed 12,736 and all the numbers jived.
Then to be sure - Baldwin County officials HAND TABULATED all of the Precinct TALLY sheets and came up with 12,376. They then HAND TABULATED all of the Precinct CALL-IN sheets and they all added up to 12,736.
IOW these votes were counted and verified 4 times.
34
posted on
11/08/2002 4:35:41 PM PST
by
commish
To: Cyber Liberty
35
posted on
11/08/2002 4:36:32 PM PST
by
blam
To: Wait4Truth
Why hasn't the county in question made a TV appearance to explain exactly what happened and how the original Siegleman numbers could not possibly be correct in the first place? Wouldn't that end this whole mess? They have - 11AM Wednesday their Probate Judge officially certified the returns on the courthouse steps in front of the press, he then held a short conference where he explained what happened and what they did about it. See my post above to JWalsh for the BC explanation.
36
posted on
11/08/2002 4:37:49 PM PST
by
commish
To: blam
AHhh Gulf Shores --- Gonna be down there Nov 30. My wife and my brothers wife are going to shop themselves silly at Riviera Center. Brother and I will be going golfing and then to Hooters to watch football.
37
posted on
11/08/2002 4:39:18 PM PST
by
commish
To: SamAdams76
Yeah, I leapt without looking, mine was, without a doubt, piling on.
38
posted on
11/08/2002 4:39:19 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: blam; Slip18
Purty....
To: commish
Sounds like Seigelman needs one of
these.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-133 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson