|
You're Doing a Heckuva Job Bushy! Bush Appoints Another Unqualified Idiot (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
this brings me back to my first thoughts when he got elected in 2000:
|
You mean when he got appointed? ;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
You mean when he got appointed? ;) |
And when every subsequent recount supported the results.;)
I'm curious what your reaction would've been if it had been Gore who had legitimately won and Bush dragged his feet in protest. Would you so much as even address the topic then? :p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And when every subsequent recount supported the results.;)
I'm curious what your reaction would've been if it had been Gore who had legitimately won and Bush dragged his feet in protest. Would you so much as even address the topic then? :p |
Still stirring the pot, Shakka? Or do you actually believe what you say here?:
| quote: | Published on Thursday, November 15, 2001 in the Long Island, NY Newsday
Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
by Jim Naureckas
IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead": A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news - the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information - gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it.
That's what happened to the findings of the media study of the uncounted votes from last year's Florida presidential vote. A consortium of news outlets - including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tribune Co. (Newsday's parent company), The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and CNN - spent nearly a year and $900,000 reexamining every disputed ballot.
The consortium determined that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the ongoing recount to go through, George W. Bush would still likely have ended up in the White House. That's because the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court - as well as the more limited recount asked for by Democratic candidate Al Gore - only involved so-called undervotes, ballots that when counted mechanically registered no choice for president.
Gore and the Florida Supreme Court ignored overvotes - votes where mechanical counting registered more than one vote - on the assumption that there would be no way to tell which of the multiple candidates the voter actually intended to pick.
But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter's intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate's name, and then writing in the same candidate's name.
Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn't matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes - whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots.
So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush.
If the first finding was the important news, the consortium was scooped long ago: The Miami Herald and USA Today, working as a separate team, published stories in April that argued persuasively that the particular recounts that were halted by the Supreme Court probably would have produced a Bush victory.
What's new is the finding that, since voters are supposed to decide elections rather than lawyers or judges, the state's electoral votes appear to have gone to the wrong candidate. Given that the outcome in Florida determined the national victor, this is not just news but a critical challenge to the legitimacy of the presidency.
So how did the media report the results of the ballot reexamination?Overwhelmingly, they chose to lead with the news that was comfortable, uncontroversial - and seven months old. "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help," was The Wall Street Journal's headline on its story, paralleling The New York Times' "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote." That angle would be fine if you believed that the Supreme Court was the most important aspect of the story; but what about the presidency?
Other members of the consortium emphasized the most Bush-friendly aspects of the story: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds," was the Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times' main headline on its report, matching The Washington Post's "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" and CNN.com's "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins." The St. Petersburg Times' Web site put it succinctly: "Recount: Bush." While some of these outlets tried to convey greater complexity in subheads, all these headlines obscure the fact that the outlets' most comprehensive recount put Gore ahead of Bush.
Emphasizing the old and conventional while playing down the new and controversial is a recipe for being ignored, and sure enough, few outlets that were not part of the consortium did much with the findings. A story that may well be mentioned in high school history classes a hundred years from now didn't even merit an editorial comment from most newspapers.
It's tempting to attribute this coyness to Sept. 11, and news outlets' reluctance to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency when the country is at war. But the coverage of the consortium's findings is similar to the way earlier media recounts were handled; even the most preliminary Miami Herald/USA Today ballot stories prompted "Bush Really Won" stories across the country. Similarly, when Bush's inauguration was greeted by raucous marchers contesting his victory, many outlets played down the significance of the protests. The New York Times virtually ignored them.
War or no war, many journalists are instinctively protective of the legitimacy of the institutions they cover, but the job of a journalist is not to promote but to question. The theory behind the First Amendment is that the system will be strengthened by an unflinching look at the system's flaws. In looking back at the results of the Florida election, the media flinched. |
More can be found here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm
And here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...y2/1128403.html
And that's not to even mention Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris' fraudulent felon purge that took off tens of thousands of black voters. The NAACP sued Harris and actually won the case against her, all after the fact, of course.
And although the first SC 7-2 decision was a good one, the second clearly partisan 5-4 decision was not. So much that a group of law professors from across the country - now numbering 637 - ran an ad in the New York Times declaring: "By stopping the vote count in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not as judges of a court of law."
So in short, give me a ing break. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Still stirring the pot, Shakka? Or do you actually believe what you say here?:
More can be found here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm
And here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...y2/1128403.html
And that's not to even mention Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris' fraudulent felon purge that took off tens of thousands of black voters. The NAACP sued Harris and actually won the case against her, all after the fact, of course.
And although the first SC 7-2 decision was a good one, the second clearly partisan 5-4 decision was not. So much that a group of law professors from across the country - now numbering 637 - ran an ad in the New York Times declaring: "By stopping the vote count in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not as judges of a court of law."
So in short, give me a ing break. |
Were there not independent recounts, independent audited recounts, recounts of recounts and recounts of those recounted recounts?
And I'm sorry but this:
| quote: |
Under any standard that counted all disputed votes in Florida, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. |
...is even more controversial given the subjective nature in which hanging chads, pregnant chads, overweight chads, anorexic chads, partial birth chads, and even aborted chads were being counted. There is always a margin of error, but do you think it's good precedent? If there's going to be a statewide recount in Florida, shouldn't we just do a full-blown national recount?
From the same link--and I thought you didn't even trust anything Drudge said, btw...
| quote: |
Gore followed a legal strategy that would have led to his defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to one interpretation set for publication. |
| quote: | | Gore took a 171-vote lead when the consortium tried to recreate how each county said it would handle a court-ordered statewide recount, and a 42-vote lead under what was called the "Palm Beach standard". |
Tried to, ahem, recreate how each county said it would handle...??? Even more subjective, Opus. This is a very bad precedent to try and pursue.
and finally..
| quote: |
All outcomes were closer than the 537 votes of Bush's official victory, the media outlets will claim, while noting it would be impossible to interpret the survey results as definitive, with such narrow margins in all directions. |
Does this statement not completely debunk any factual conclusions that the piece was coming to in the first place?
This whole thing is subject to so much subjective interpretation that it only serves to stir the pot itself. The only definitive conclusion reached by the 2000 vote was that our nation is in bad need of an entire voting infrastructure upgrade if we're going to scrutinize every single vote to the degree that we did. But to have people on the left continuing to decry the results saying that Gore should've been put in the White House, imo, is nothing more than more sour grapes, 6 YEARS after the fact. Get over it. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
What gets me about that whole Florida debacle was that, either way, the election of the President was contigent upon votes by people too stupid to punch a single whole next to the name they wanted.
Oh, and to stay on topic:
I think, while the lack of experience does seem bad, that we should wait to judge this person until she has shown what or what not she is capable of in this position.
But then if you think Bush is a looney, that combined with the lack of experience of the appointee may be damning enough. I guess... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And when every subsequent recount supported the results.;)
I'm curious what your reaction would've been if it had been Gore who had legitimately won and Bush dragged his feet in protest. Would you so much as even address the topic then? :p |
Actually, I didn't like either one of them.
Remember, I'm a Libertarian - so that whole bipartisan, Democrat vs. Republican argument doesn't work with me. I make it a point to look beyond the petty infighting.
Our Democratic process itself was the loser in that election. It would have been great if there had been a legitimate winner, but it's pretty obvious that there wasn't. Maybe I should resurrect that topic as it seems that you don't fully realize all of the voting trickery that went on during that election - especially in Florida. ;) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Still stirring the pot, Shakka? Or do you actually believe what you say here?:
More can be found here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm
And here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...y2/1128403.html
And that's not to even mention Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris' fraudulent felon purge that took off tens of thousands of black voters. The NAACP sued Harris and actually won the case against her, all after the fact, of course.
And although the first SC 7-2 decision was a good one, the second clearly partisan 5-4 decision was not. So much that a group of law professors from across the country - now numbering 637 - ran an ad in the New York Times declaring: "By stopping the vote count in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not as judges of a court of law."
So in short, give me a ing break. |
I guess I should have read a little bit further down the page. LOL
I have a lot more, too. I liked the way Greg Palast went on a streak exposing the people that were involved. I even have a nice documentary on it which was done by him. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
But to have people on the left continuing to decry the results saying that Gore should've been put in the White House, imo, is nothing more than more sour grapes, 6 YEARS after the fact. Get over it. |
Actually, after close examination - quite a few of my Republican friends agree that it was a flawed election. The health of our Democracy (yeah, Constitutional Republic) is not a partisan issue, my friend - it's an American issue. Those who cheat in the elections are not cheating the system, but rather the American people themselves. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Were there not independent recounts, independent audited recounts, recounts of recounts and recounts of those recounted recounts? |
Yes, and I posted what those audited recounts would have demonstrated, absent of the Diebold debacle which effectively and DELIBERATELY erased tens of thousands of registered voters, the majority being Democratic voters led by Harris and Jeb Bush, illegally I might add (which the NAACP demonstrated with their law suit and won).
| quote: | And I'm sorry but this:
...is even more controversial given the subjective nature in which hanging chads, pregnant chads, overweight chads, anorexic chadspartial birth chads, and even aborted chads were being counted. There is always a margin of error, but do you think it's good precedent? If there's going to be a statewide recount in Florida, shouldn't we just do a full-blown national recount? |
The entire nation wasn't in question. I understand your point, and I also understand there being various voter frauds and questionable cases involved in other states, but none were brought to the courts so we cannot determine didly on those issues that were not brought to our attention legally.
Florida was another matter altogether, however.
| quote: | From the same link--and I thought you didn't even trust anything Drudge said, btw...
Tried to, ahem, recreate how each county said it would handle...??? Even more subjective, Opus. This is a very bad precedent to try and pursue. |
Well I pointed the Drudge citation out to demonstrate that counting all votes would have gone to Gore. And the "recreate how each country said it would handle" is a bit of a bad interpretation of what the Supreme Court decided in the 7-2 decision. It simply passed down to the Florida Supreme Court to come up with different objective STANDARDS to count the ballots. This could have been done without any harm, and it could have been accomplished in due time, but the proceeding 5-4 decision effectively cut off the Florida Supreme Court to even start creating new standards to count the votes.
| quote: | and finally..
Does this statement not completely debunk any factual conclusions that the piece was coming to in the first place? |
Well if I said these studies were definitive in any way, I would be incorrect. Any study performed after-the-fact are always up for scrutiny. However what I was pointing out is that the definitive possibility existed that Gore would have won HAD ALL votes been counted.
And that's not even including the illegal scrub list that Harris included.
| quote: | | This whole thing is subject to so much subjective interpretation that it only serves to stir the pot itself. The only definitive conclusion reached by the 2000 vote was that our nation is in bad need of an entire voting infrastructure upgrade if we're going to scrutinize every single vote to the degree that we did. But to have people on the left continuing to decry the results saying that Gore should've been put in the White House, imo, is nothing more than more sour grapes, 6 YEARS after the fact. Get over it. |
Well I agree with your sentiments. And I think you know that I'm the last person that's still hung up on such a subject. I fully accept Bush being the President. I may not have accepted it with a Supreme Court appointing a President way back then. After all, there was some serious controversy for this Supreme Court to stop the recounts in the first place. For example, The Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority across ideological lines made an injunction to stop the recount temporarily pending the outcome of the ruling based on:
""irreparable harm" to "George Bush's reputation as the legitimate winner."
What the ? Injunctions for irreparable harm are NOT granted IF doing so would cause greater or equal harm to the other party involved (Gore). So why the did the Conservatives on the Court pull this one out of their ass?
Furthermore, the final 5-4 decision to fully stop the recounts had this majority opinion by the Conservatives:
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
You see, the Supreme Court decisions by definition set a precedent. How the could such a decision like this with language such as the above set a precedent for any future cases? How could it even remotely be parallel to the principle of stare decisis?
And furthermore, when we compare the decision of the Supreme Court refusing to hear the bull argument of Terry Schiavo brought to it by the GOP and Bush on the basis that it's not only a state issue but no legal precedent could be taken place, how does one justify those actions in comparison to the actions of the Supreme Court with the Bush v Gore case? It simply doesn't mesh with judicial reason.
Finally, the issue of recounting all the votes had numerous roadblocks and pauses deliberately set forth by Harris and Jeb Bush. Time and again they tried to slow down and pause the recount, and often times they succeeded. Then the SC stepped in and set that injunction down by the Conservatives on the Court with no legal precedent in doing so, and the final tally ultimately didn't occur.
These are the issues that I have with that election. I'm plenty "over it", bub, and the '04 election certainly solidified his position as President. As interesting the discrepancies are about the votes in '04 in both Florida and Ohio, I still fully accept Bush being the President. I can still logically and rationally have issues with that election while being "over it" at the same time. It can happen. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Well hey--just 2 more years and he's out, and I have a gut feeling that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the next pres will have a donkey bumper sticker on his (or *gasp* her) car. Unless we get a 3rd independent party in power, which seems like more of a long-shot than I care to come up with odds for.;) I'm bracing myself for a tax hike! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well hey--just 2 more years and he's out, and I have a gut feeling that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the next pres will have a donkey bumper sticker on his (or *gasp* her) car. Unless we get a 3rd independent party in power, which seems like more of a long-shot than I care to come up with odds for.;) I'm bracing myself for a tax hike! |
Well hey, someone's gotta pay for all that borrowed credit!
I can't say I foresee a Dem. in the office in 2 years just yet. I'm more optimistic that either/both the House and Senate might swing back to the Dems. first before another Dem. gets back into the oval office.
Either way, I just want a ing balance of power between both sides of the aisle. I don't care if one side is in the office or not, so long as the opposite side controls the Legislature. That way actual compromise between the parties occur, and they actually have to deal with people who don't agree with their ideological views on everything. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well hey--just 2 more years and he's out |
Well, seeing as how some Republicans are even beginning to talk about impeachment - it's possible that it could be sooner than that. We could only be so lucky.
| quote: | Top Republican raises impeachment over surveillance flap
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top US Republican senator for the first time mentioned impeachment in connection with President George W. Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant.
Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cautioned it was too early to draw any conclusions as his committee gears up for public hearings into the growing controversy early next month.
But in his appearance on ABC's "This Week" program, Specter insisted the Senate was not going to give the president what he called "a blank check."
When asked what could happen if lawmakers find Bush in violation of the law, Specter answered: "Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy ... under our society is to pay a political price."
He made it a point to clarify, however, that he was speaking theoretically and was "not suggesting remotely that there's any basis" for a presidential impeachment at this moment.
The controversy erupted last month after the New York Times reported that Bush had repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.
Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government can conduct such surveillance only for 72 hours as it seeks a warrant for continued monitoring.
Bush has blasted the disclosure as harmful to national security and vowed to continue the wiretaps, arguing he had the right to authorize them under his constitutional war powers as well as a resolution passed by Congress in the wake in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The measure adopted three days after the strikes allows the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in them, but contains no specific language on surveillance.
Specter said he disagreed with the contention that the resolution included an implicit authorization to modify the surveillance act.
"If that's what the administration was relying on, I thought they were wrong," he pointed out.
He added that the issue of wartime presidential powers was "a very knotty question" that "ought to be thoroughly examined."
Specter assured he was prepared to listen to the administration's explanations, but warned, "I'm going to wear my skepticism on my sleeve."
The chairman became the second Republican Judiciary Committee member to publicly question the president's rationale for authorizing the wiretaps.
Senator Sam Brownback said last month he did not agree "with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance."
The statements indicate the Bush administration will not be able to count on full support from the 10 committee Republicans when the hearings begin in early February.
The judiciary committee also has eight Democrats, who have questioned the legality of the surveillance program.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the Democratic members, reiterated her doubts Sunday, saying, "I do not believe it's true that the president's plenary power would allow him to simply avoid the law."
The fray was also joined by First Lady Laura Bush, who told reporters on the way to Liberia that the American people expected the president "to do what they can to make sure there's not an attack by foreign terrorists."
The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 50 percent of Americans believe the administration was right undertaking these wiretaps, while 46 percent said it was wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006011...ce_060116004302
|
|
|
|
|
|
