Re: Republican Lies

[levien@cc.gatech.edu (Levien de Braal)]

Hello all,

Robbie Honerkamp <robbie@shorty.com> wrote:
>>Thank you for blindly and brainlessly forwarding the Republican spin. Not
>>that the Democrats aren't spinning, but you're not cheerleading them right
>>now. 
>I could just as easily accuse you of blindly and brainlessly supporting
>Democratic spin as well.

Interesting comment, considering you placed it directly after my statement
that the Democrats are spinning too.

>Just because I'm expressing an opinion that doesn't agree with your view of
>the world doesn't mean that it's brainless or that I'm partisan (I'm not-
>Bush is a moron and Gore is a liar and neither one deserve to be president).

You forwarded a link to www.algorelost.org, which is obviously highly
partisan. You specificly quoted a deliberate misquote from a Gore statement.
In doing so you didn't show any brain activity other than random neurons
firing. I suggest you be more sceptical to the Bush party-line.

>> And those who have been paying actual attention to the proceedings
>[...[
>> county was disregarded, and the fourth county dropped the ball completely
>> after they were mobbed by Republicans trying to obstruct/stop the count.
>Who's the one following party lines here? The Republicans in Miami didn't
>get agitated until the vote recount was moved into a room without any
>party representatives in it, in violation of recount policies.

It would have been a violation if they had actually started the recount
without letting people in. The Republicans in question started their
demonstration immediately when they were asked to wait for everything to
be made ready in the room. That's just a totally anal attitude, and there's
no reasonable excuse.

>And calling a group of Republicans standing around chanting "stop stealing
>the vote" a mob and claiming that they stopped the recount because of that
>shows that you're not paying attention to the proceedings either. Miami
>stopped the vote recount because they could not complete the recount in time
>to meet the deadline to have their count finished. The elections board there
>decided to stop their recount of their own free will- it's ridiculous to
>think that a dozen chanting guys in the lobby would force them one way
>or the other.

They actually decided to no longer count all the votes, considering the
timeline presented a common sense move (note this decision actually favored
Bush, and even though Bush and Harris were a major cause for the delays I'm
still agreeing with that decision as it is). They ALSO decided to count the
10,750 votes that were never counted at all, the so-called 'undervote'. These
ballots either have no vote for President, or one that isn't conveniently
interpreted by the counting machines. I also agree with that decision. That
decision was at 9AM. It wasn't until the Republican mob presented itself that
they decided suddenly to not count all. That was at noon the same day.
I'll admit it shows a lack of sense of duty on the part of the democratic
Miami-Dade canvassing board, and I find it regrettable. It isn't a good faith
effort in getting a fair count of the votes.

>It's government building- if they were a 'mob', they'd 
>have been hauled out of there in handcuffs. Calling them a mob is just
>repeating Democratic spin without any fact.

I saw the mob on TV, and my terminology is 'Mob'. A large group of loud and
obnoxious people banging on the door, trying to get their way through
intimidation. IMHO, a low-point in these events.

>>Exactly in accordance with his prior statements, Al Gore is contesting the
>>'results' of this embarassment of an election. It's clear to me Bush is
>>trying to bully his way into the White House, damn the uncounted votes.
>This is a pretty colored view of things as well. Bush won the first election.
>Bush has continued to win every recount since.

Bush was ahead after the first count. The automatic machine recount reduced
his lead. (so, if you insist in looking at individual counts, Gore actually
'won' the second count) There really haven't been that many recounts since.
When a county recounted a small sample to decide on whether it was needed to
recount them all, the Republicans were eager to label it as a separate
recount. In fact, all the recounting that has been done so far has all been
part of one recount process.

>It's pretty clear that Gore intends to sue, sue, sue so he can count and
>recount votes until he can get the results to come out the way he wants. 

Your partisan colors are showing in your willingness to project intent on
one side. I personally disagree with you. Gore has shown no such intent, and
the same statement that you misquoted is where Gore made clear he had no
such intent. Whether or not people choose to believe him, or at least give
him the benefit of the doubt is up to them.

>Raise your hand if you actually thought that Gore wouldn't have been
>back in court regardless of what happened with the recounts if he hadn't
>been declared the winner. 

*raises hand*

As pointed out above, I see no reason to assume he wouldn't have kept his
promise. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

>It's plainly not fair to have a handful of counties recount their votes
>each using different standards of how they interpret fudged votes.
>There should be a standard that they all use. There isn't. It's also not fair
>for a handful of counties to recount their votes when other counties aren't.

I see. That's FUD, I hope you realise that. Only a few counties have been
recounting because Gore was the only one to ask counties to recount, and he
asked those with the highest number (note: number, not rate) of undervotes.
Obviously he's not going to ask for recounts in counties where the results
are more likely to favor Bush. That's Bush's job. One could ofcourse also
argue that Gore not immediately asking for a statewide recount shows he's
more interested in winning than in counting ALL the votes, but considering
that this is a normal procedure for recounts I can't reasonably hold that
against him. And, he did offer a statewide recount later, but Bush refused.

The 'selective counties' argument presented by the Bush camp is invalid
because the only reason the recount is held in only those counties is that
Bush himself opted not to ask for a recount in 'his' counties. Just because
he's not interested in exercising that right doesn't mean others shouldn't
have that right either. Challenges are based on EITHER candidate doing so,
not on BOTH doing so.

About the 'different standard' issue: if all counties were using the same
voting procedures, machinery, and ballots, you and the Republicans would have
a point. This is not the case however. In Florida, elections are held on a
per-county basis, and that's why each county canvassing board has to figure
things out on their own. They may voluntarily ask one another on what the
other is doing, but in the end they are to make their own decision. Note this
also means I actually disagree with Gore on his 'dimpled ballot' argument in
Palm Beach. The system in place is such that each county decides for itself,
and if there were any need for a statewide (nationwide?) standard, it should
have been set BEFORE the election.

>Since mistakes are made in vote counts all across the country, why not 
>have a recount all across the country? 

Because a 0.1 % swing in votes elsewhere won't affect the outcome. A 0.1 %
swing in the outcome of counties such as Miami-Dade and Palm Beach actually
does change who gets inaugurated on January 20th. For instance, Bush won
Georgia by a huge margin. Recounting to get a more accurate result won't
change the end result, so the effort would serve no purpose other than
satisfying the anally retentive.

>When Nixon ran against Kennedy, [...]

Different situation, different people, different results... History.

>Even here in Nigeria, where _everyone_ was a die-hard Gore supporter (and
>were all quite upset to hear that Bush won on 8 November) Gore's support
>has pretty much gone.

What do you mean with 'Even ...' ?  How is that 'Even' ? Is Nigeria somehow
a shining example to the world on Democracy and Elections ? Are the Nigerian
people better educated, or simply smarter ?  What exactly is your point ?!?

>I understand that you'll probably disagree with what she says, but I'd
>like you to read this editorial by Peggy Noonan and try to see things from
>a different angle:  http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

If that's YOUR opinion, you shouldn't present yourself as an independent.
I indeed disagree with Peggy Noonan. On, well, just about everything. I'd
like to point out one thing about her viotriolic diatribe against everyone
and everything democratic: she doesn't actually present one iota of actual
evidence for her rather far-reaching accusations.

>Heather wants to add:
>The margin of error to count the votes is greater than the difference between
>the candidates' totals. It's a statistical tie.

I agree completely.

>If we keep recounting and recounting, isn't the faith in the political
>process eroded? It'll be better for America if they declare a president
>as soon as possible. Holding more recounts is only going to increase
>people's cynicism and apathy regarding the American political process.

I don't think the timetable matters. What matters is the sense of legitimacy
the new President will have. And yes, things are not looking good the way they
are going now. The solution however is not to simply flock behind Bush. That's
just as valid/invalid as everybody flocking behind Gore.

As far as the apathy of Americans regarding the political process, it seems
hard to imagine that things can get much worse than they are already. I
recall talking to certain Americans who have told me they vote for whatever
way creates as much deadlock as possible. Many others simply don't care
enough to inform themselves about the issues and just go by soundbites
they see on TV. Don't get me wrong, these people also exist in other
countries around the world, including where I'm from, it just seems to me to
be more widespread and a bigger problem here in the US.

>Another thing to think about is the United States is a nation of
>soverign states. And as much as we hate the idea, Florida has complete
>soverignty to declare whomever they wish as electors. This includes 
>the legislature intervening or whatever is Florida law.

Yep. If they get together and elect Bush, he wins, all in accordance with the
rules. Unless Congress overrules them ofcourse, but with the Republicans
dominating the House this isn't very likely. Also, the Republicans don't WANT
to win that way, because there might be hell to pay four years down the road 
if that were to be their approach to solving the issue. It all boils down to
the perception of legitimacy.
 
>The real problem is that the broken American political process nominated
>two candidates for president who could not muster up enough support to
>clearly win a plurality of the vote. 

A tie isn't a sign of a 'broken' political process. It's just that, a tie.
What to me is more indicative of problems is how the tie is being handled.
So far, very very badly.

Robbie continues:
>>Well, there is a history for referring to someone as 'President Elect' well
>>before the electoral college election. It has been a formality for so long
>>anyway. I do think it's awfully presumptious and arrogant for Bush to declare
>>victory and calling on Gore to do "what's best for the country". 
>So, Bush is being presumptious by saying he's won because he only won the
>last three ballot counts. And he's being arrogant by refraining from
>referring to himself as the President Elect until this mess gets sorted out.

He's arrogant and presumptious for claiming victory the way he did. It was
downright insulting to his opponent. (not that Gore doesn't deserve certain
insults thrown at him, but not by Bush. You know: Pot, Kettle...) He hasn't
won until it's over. He knew at the time that it wouldn't be over, the other
side had made that very clear.

>>In this case that's just an euphemism for letting Bush get away
>>with what he's doing.
>Meanwhile, Gore is a shining example of responsibility by demanding that
>the votes be recounted until he likes the outcome, and if that can't happen
>he'll sue until he gets what he wants.
>It's an interesting world you live in.. :-)
 
I didn't say Gore was a shining example of anything. Thanks for trying to put
words into my mouth.

Levien
-- 
"Do you hear the people sing, Lost in the valley of the night?
 It is the music of a people, Who are climbing to the light.
 For the wretched of the earth, There is a flame that never dies.
 Even the darkest night will end, And the sun will rise." -- Les Miserables