Re: Republican Lies

[Mike Harrelson <mikeh@mindspring.com>]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Levien de Braal wrote:

> ...
> >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.

But you're not?

> 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.

As someone once said, "You can tell a tree by its fruit."  Look at what Gore
is doing, not what he says.  Gore is the one filing lawsuits left and right to
get the normal ballot counting procedures altered.  Nearly all of the Bush
court filings are in response to Gore's legal manuevers (with the exception of
the rejected military ballots).

> ...
> >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.

Bush refused because under Florida state law, there are only 3 circumstances
under which a hand count is allowed.  There is no legal basis for doing
handcounts.  6 Republican counties did do handcounts because of mechanical
problems.  Their results were certified by the 7 day deadline.  After the
second recount, when Gore saw that he was still behind, he _then_ pressed for
hand counts in those counties that he won by a large margin.

> 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.

Huh?  There is no such "right" in this situation.  The selective counties
argument is still valid.  They are all heavily Democratic.  Statistically,
only Gore could possibly pick up any votes there.  Just because Bush doesn't
demand a handcount in Republican won counties doesn't validate Gore's
handcount request.

> 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.

It was.  What he was referring to is the changing of the rules and procedures
as to what constitutes a legitimate ballot.  Those rules have indeed changed,
constantly, during the counting process.  The changing of the rules/procedures
of certification while that election is still being certified is a violation
of Federal law.  That's the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court this Friday.

> ...
> >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.

She presents more evidence than you have.  Yes, I know she's bias, but she has
access to a lot more involved people and information than you do.  Most of
your "information" seems to have come from Democrat pundits or the news media
which, by their own admission, tend to favor liberal Democrats.

>...

-- mikeh
                                   ,,,,,
                                   (o o)
------------------------------oOO---(_)---OOo------------------------------
|  Mike Harrelson: Software Systems Engineer - Georgia State University   |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| <><  Email: mikeh@mindspring.com   http://gcedunet.peachnet.edu/~mikeh  |
| "Life is like a mirror. If you smile at it, it smiles back at you.  But |
| if you frown, it will frown too, and give you a hard time" -Jimmie Dodd |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------