For your blood pressure
Avedon Carol
a presidential pardon that may not have been on the up-and-up,
something _only_ Bill Clinton would do. Gee, where were these people
when all those Reagan/Bush cronies got away with treason?
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64206-2001Jan29.html
There's talk in Washington now of trying to revoke the pardon on
technical grounds, while some in Congress discuss whether the
presidential pardon power should be somehow curbed. These forays are
understandable but misguided. The problem isn't with the power but
with how Mr. Clinton used it. He's a private citizen now, but we
continue to think he owes more of an explanation than he's given.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Kip Williams
>
> From an editorial in the Post about how the incredible, unique idea of
> a presidential pardon that may not have been on the up-and-up,
> something _only_ Bill Clinton would do. Gee, where were these people
> when all those Reagan/Bush cronies got away with treason?
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64206-2001Jan29.html
> There's talk in Washington now of trying to revoke the pardon on
> technical grounds, while some in Congress discuss whether the
> presidential pardon power should be somehow curbed. These forays are
> understandable but misguided. The problem isn't with the power but
> with how Mr. Clinton used it. He's a private citizen now, but we
> continue to think he owes more of an explanation than he's given.
Yeah, I read about this today. Eager young GOP staffers found
something from the last century about how the pardon has to be
served, like a summons, to have any effect. And since they still
have it, they're just thinking about not serving it at all. La de
da.
Mister Bush is so far above the laws, I suspect if he dived off the
Washington Monument, gravity would be suspended before he reached
the ground. Be nice to find out.
In the meantime, the gallant GOP has declined to pursue punishment
for the vicious sabotage engaged in by the evil Dems leaving the
White House. This way, they don't have to tell the true extent of
the damage, and just leave it to their rumor operatives to make it
sound like something totally unprecedented and uniquely new and
evil. Where can I find a list of the crap that they did when they
left the White House for Clinton to move in?
It's been weeks since the 2000 selection mess, and nobody seems to
want to think about it any more. They just want to go back to sleep.
They say the truth is out there. No doubt it's buried under the big
"W."
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
mike weber
typed
>I was reading the Time Canada article on this in a doctor's office
>today; it was, among other things, nakedly anti-semitic, and
>completely devoid of any facts other than the fact of the pardon and
>people's names and such; loads and loads of insinuations.
>
>I think y'all have a really serious problem with your free press.
>
No. We have a serious problem with our bought-and-paid-for press.
--
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the
strong -- but that's the way to bet." -- Ring Lardner
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
Ulrika O'Brien
gra...@dsl.ca says...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 02:38:38 +0000,
> Avedon Carol <ave...@thirdworld.uk> scripsit:
> >From an editorial in the Post about how the incredible, unique idea of
> >a presidential pardon that may not have been on the up-and-up,
> >something _only_ Bill Clinton would do. Gee, where were these people
> >when all those Reagan/Bush cronies got away with treason?
> >
> >http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64206-2001Jan29.html
> >There's talk in Washington now of trying to revoke the pardon on
> >technical grounds, while some in Congress discuss whether the
> >presidential pardon power should be somehow curbed. These forays are
> >understandable but misguided. The problem isn't with the power but
> >with how Mr. Clinton used it. He's a private citizen now, but we
> >continue to think he owes more of an explanation than he's given.
>
> today; it was, among other things, nakedly anti-semitic, and
> completely devoid of any facts other than the fact of the pardon and
> people's names and such; loads and loads of insinuations.
>
> I think y'all have a really serious problem with your free press.
Well, a free press is worth what you pay for it...
Marilee J. Layman
There's a brief summary in the third section down here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43195-2001Jan24.html
>It's been weeks since the 2000 selection mess, and nobody seems to
>want to think about it any more. They just want to go back to sleep.
>They say the truth is out there. No doubt it's buried under the big
>"W."
--
Marilee J. Layman The Other*Worlds*Cafe
HOSTE...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group.
AOL Keyword: OWC http://www.webmoose.com/owc
Lenny Bailes
A few people want to think about it. A larger number of people
are willing to own that the election was stolen, but only
ironically. This seems, to me, to be what we might have
expected. Of all the people who realize that the election
was stolen, a certain number may be moved to some degree of
political action by logical, outraged rhetoric. But, as I
said before, I believe that we should also remember the power
of art and music to move us toward concrete political
activity. Gary expressed misgivings about the power of "art
propaganda" to sway people to irrationality the last time I
brought this up. And others seem to feel that it's irrelevant.
Art is art and politics are politics. But I feel that
"right-brained" gestalt/emotional processes can play a natural part
in the way we make decisions about what to do in the world.
I'm for more Phil Ochs, Louden Wainwright, CSNY, Jackon Brown,
Foremen, Mort Sahl, Garry Trudeau, Ursula Le Guin, Terry Bisson,
Arthur Penn, Mike Nichols, Jean Luc Godard, Kevin Smith, Coen Bros.,
occasional Trey Parker, and their descendants to keep the Ether
vibrating while the Republicans bank on the laws of inertia
to make us seek sleep. (Which is not to suggest that we shirk
reading and informing ourselves on current events or campaigning
and voting for decent political candidates.)
--
Lenny Bailes | len...@slip.net | http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~lennyb
P Nielsen Hayden
Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> wrote:
>A few people want to think about it. A larger number of people
>are willing to own that the election was stolen, but only
>ironically. This seems, to me, to be what we might have
>expected. Of all the people who realize that the election
>was stolen, a certain number may be moved to some degree of
>political action by logical, outraged rhetoric. But, as I
>said before, I believe that we should also remember the power
>of art and music to move us toward concrete political
>activity. Gary expressed misgivings about the power of "art
>propaganda" to sway people to irrationality the last time I
>brought this up. And others seem to feel that it's irrelevant.
>Art is art and politics are politics. But I feel that
>"right-brained" gestalt/emotional processes can play a natural part
>in the way we make decisions about what to do in the world.
>
>I'm for more Phil Ochs, Louden Wainwright, CSNY, Jackon Brown,
>Foremen, Mort Sahl, Garry Trudeau, Ursula Le Guin, Terry Bisson,
>Arthur Penn, Mike Nichols, Jean Luc Godard, Kevin Smith, Coen Bros.,
>occasional Trey Parker, and their descendants to keep the Ether
>vibrating while the Republicans bank on the laws of inertia
>to make us seek sleep. (Which is not to suggest that we shirk
>reading and informing ourselves on current events or campaigning
>and voting for decent political candidates.)
Of course art and music are important. "Politics" and "culture" are
domains with fuzzy boundaries.
But a major problem I have with this stuff is that, for so many people
of your and my generations, it's part of the big cop-out of hoping
that magic powerful people will come along and take care of the big
problems.
Sure, it would be nice to have new cultural figures on "our side" with
the reach and influence of, say, Bob Dylan circa 1966. But it would
be even nicer if more people stopped wishing for some kind of sweeping
cultural change to just happen, and started thinking about what they
can do. Not in the abstract, but _this afternoon_.
That's what the Right does. They have millions of people, they're
well-organized, and those people get work done. Tedious and often
boring work. They think about what they can do this afternoon -- and
they do it. Wrongheaded they may be, but they aren't waiting for art
to save them. They do the necessary stuff, and consequences ensue.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Kip Williams
>
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:16:23 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
> >In the mean time, the gallant GOP has declined to pursue punishment
> >for the vicious sabotage engaged in by the evil Dems leaving the
> >White House. This way, they don't have to tell the true extent of
> >the damage, and just leave it to their rumor operatives to make it
> >sound like something totally unprecedented and uniquely new and
> >evil. Where can I find a list of the crap that they did when they
> >left the White House for Clinton to move in?
>
> There's a brief summary in the third section down here:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43195-2001Jan24.html
Thanks muchly!
Avedon Carol
>It's been weeks since the 2000 selection mess, and nobody seems to
>want to think about it any more. They just want to go back to sleep.
>They say the truth is out there. No doubt it's buried under the big
>"W."
<laugh> Lovely, Kip. The image of Jimmy Durante kicking that bucket
ran through my head a few times during the campaign, but I could never
think of a way to use the line.
But my blood-pressure is still roiling. Here's Michael Kelly ranting
about the evil Clintons, yet again, pretending that reading about
sleazy presidencies is caused by sleazly Clintons rather than a highly
partisan press:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4418-2001Jan30.html
Meanwhile, a breath of sanity that tells quite another story....
http://www.consortiumnews.com/012901a.html
[....]
In a speech to a Catholic service organization on Jan. 7, the chief
justice said sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court needed to intervene in
politics to extricate the nation from a crisis.
Rehnquist’s remarks were made in the context of the Hayes-Tilden race
in 1876, when another popular vote loser, Rutherford B. Hayes, was
awarded the presidency after justices participated in a special
election commission.
“The political processes of the country had worked, admittedly in a
rather unusual way, to avoid a serious crisis,” Rehnquist said.
Scholars interpreted Rehnquist’s remarks as shedding light on his
thinking during the Bush v. Gore case as well.
“He’s making a rather clear statement of what he thought the primary
job of our governmental process was,” said Michael Les Benedict, a
history professor at Ohio State University. “That was to make sure the
conflict is resolved peacefully, with no violence.” [Washington Post,
Jan. 19, 2001]
But where were the threats of violence in the 2000 election? Gore had
reined in his supporters, urging them to avoid confrontations and to
trust in the “rule of law.”
The only violence had come from the Bush side, when protesters were
flown from Washington to Miami to put pressure on local election
boards.
[....]
If one takes Rehnquist’s “good-for-the-country” rationale seriously,
that means the U.S. Supreme Court was ready to award the presidency to
the side most willing to use violence and other anti-democratic means
to overturn the will of the voters.
[and, later...]
By picking Sentelle, Rehnquist assured that future special prosecutors
would be more politically attuned to Republican political needs.
Rehnquist decision and his continuation of Sentelle in that position
through the 1990s led to a string of conservative special prosecutors
who pulled their punches on Republicans and flailed away at Democrats.
Double Standard
Sentelle’s first special prosecutor was named when a scandal arose in
fall 1992 over the Bush administration’s illegal searches of Bill
Clinton’s passport records – seeking derogatory material that could be
used to insure George H.W. Bush’s reelection.
Sentelle's panel handed this politically sensitive probe off to
Republican stalwart Joseph diGenova, who ran an investigation that
turned up many facts pointing to Republican guilt but still concluded
that the Bush operatives were innocent.
Once the Clinton administration began, Sentelle’s panel picked
hard-line conservatives to investigate the Democrats. Republican
Donald Smaltz was named to investigate Agriculture Secretary Mike
Espy. David Barrett, who had headed Lawyers for Reagan, was picked to
investigate Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
And most notably, Bush’s Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was chosen to
investigate President Clinton, first over the Whitewater case and
later over other allegations.
In Senate testimony in 1999, Sentelle explained that he consciously
selected political adversaries to conduct these investigations.
Sentelle said he looked for Republicans “who had been active on the
other side of the political fence” to investigate Clinton and his
administration.
Beyond the view of many legal experts that prosecutors should be as
impartial as possible – neither friends nor foes of the person under
investigation – Sentelle also had applied his selection strategy
differently in 1992 when the subject was a Republican administration.
Then, he picked a fellow Republican to handle the investigation.
Though Sentelle testified otherwise, it seemed clear that his real
criterion for selecting a special prosecutor in sensitive cases was to
pick a Republican.
[more - which everyone really, really needs to read]
John Boston
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:16:23 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >It's been weeks since the 2000 selection mess, and nobody seems to
> >want to think about it any more. They just want to go back to sleep.
> >They say the truth is out there. No doubt it's buried under the big
> >"W."
>
> <laugh> Lovely, Kip. The image of Jimmy Durante kicking that bucket
> ran through my head a few times during the campaign, but I could never
> think of a way to use the line.
>
> But my blood-pressure is still roiling. Here's Michael Kelly ranting
> about the evil Clintons, yet again, pretending that reading about
> sleazy presidencies is caused by sleazly Clintons rather than a highly
> partisan press:
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4418-2001Jan30.html
Today's New York Times has another editorial about those
sleazy Clintons: the pardons (check. heard that), the book advance
(check. heard that) and the gifts. Well, the gifts . . . they have
figured out that the amount is not out of line with those from other
administrations, but the sleazy Clintons took them _all in one year_
rather than spreading them out over the terms like decent folk.
Well, here's what they actually say:
"The four-year total of gifts that she and her husband took
from wealth friends was, as Mrs. Clinton notes, not out of
proportion with other first families. But the Clintons' gifts
came in a glut in the last year, when she should have been
putting her new role as an incoming senator ahead of her
transitory status as a departing first lady."
Creative, huh?
John Boston
ideefixe
p...@panix.com wrote on 2/1/01 7:52 AM:
I have repeatedly heard myself asking myself (ah, the joys of internal
dialog) where the song refrain like "Four dead in Ohio" is for the travesty
that was this election.
Of course, the tin soldiers in Bush's army managed not to shoot anybody
dead, and for that we should be thankful. But they did manage to destroy
truth, justice, and the American way, and for that we should be outraged.
Some of us are outraged. I am outraged. I am so furious that I am ready
and willing to do the tedious and boring work that needs to be done to
effect a change. But what is that work? In a political climate where the
Democratic members of the Senate won't even stop the ascension of John
Ashcroft to Attorney General, where is the opposition party I should join?
My Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, has at least given public voice to the
outrage, and I have called her office to ask what can be done.... only to
learn that they apparently don't have a clue, either.
Tonight I attend a local Green Party meeting to see where their heads are
at. Other ideas, mostly futile, pass through my head. Start printing
buttons and t-shirts? (That's this week's idea.) Buy a billboard? Write a
song? Move to Washington and organize a daily picket line at the Supreme
Court? I'm ready to devote time and resources to this (though not
fruitlessly). But where is the leader? What is the plan?
At this point the only glimmer of hope I see is the possibility that the
sitting duck Democrats are playing dead so as to launch a surprise attack
later.
I'm not holding my breath.
--
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
Avram Grumer
> You need something to be for.
>
> The Republican party is _for_ something; it's something remarkably
> vile, but they're for it, and they've found a positive way to spin it,
> and they're relentless in pursuit of it.
>
> What are you for? How to do you explain that to people?
This week: I'm for democracy. I'm for getting people registered, and for
getting registered voters to the polls, and having the resources, people,
and equipment available that's necessary to make sure that every single
legal vote is counted.
Once that's done, a few more things I'm for: Freedom of speech.
Technoliberation[1]. Sex education, and widespread availability of birth
control technology (and that includes abortion). National health care.
The right to own firearms, licensed if necessary. More and better mass
transit.
[1] See Greg Egan's _Distress_.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"All this talk of legitimacy is way overblown."
-- James Baker III
Seen on ABC's "This Week", 10 December 2000
Mark Atwood
>
> Once that's done, a few more things I'm for: Freedom of speech.
> Technoliberation[1]. Sex education, and widespread availability of birth
> control technology (and that includes abortion). National health care.
> The right to own firearms, licensed if necessary. More and better mass
> transit.
Pity that neither major party is for those things.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
cliff
(in message <B69F25EF.1AF3D%idee...@earthlink.net>):
> I have repeatedly heard myself asking myself (ah, the joys of internal
> dialog) where the song refrain like "Four dead in Ohio" is for the travesty
> that was this election.
>
> Of course, the tin soldiers in Bush's army managed not to shoot anybody
> dead, and for that we should be thankful. But they did manage to destroy
> truth, justice, and the American way, and for that we should be outraged.
Interesting--Bush is accused of stealing the election even though he won it
by every rule in effect at the time of the election, and Al Gore and his coup
d'etat team had to try to change the rules three different times in order to
manufacture a victory... and when they failed at that, they wanted to change
the rules a FOURTH time before a 7-2 vote of the court, including both
Democratic and Republican appointees, ruled that the recount was
unconstitutional as to the way it was being handled.
Actually, the attempt to steal the election was stymied, much to Gore's
chagrin. The American system won in this case, and I was very glad to see it.
cliff
Andrew Plotkin
>> Of course, the tin soldiers in Bush's army managed not to shoot anybody
>> dead, and for that we should be thankful. But they did manage to destroy
>> truth, justice, and the American way, and for that we should be outraged.
> Interesting--Bush is accused of stealing the election even though he won it
> by every rule in effect at the time of the election
Walk-on troll.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Just once, I'd like to vote for the better of two goods.
Soren deSelby
Save the Big Lie for a dumber audience. These shameless,
deliberate distortions and falsehoods have been thoroughly and repeatedly
demolished. You know they're false, we know they're false. Your side lost,
and stole the election. Trying to persuade any intelligent, honest person
otherwise is laughable.
On second thought, keep it up. Don't let us forget who you all really are.
________
no unity with traitors
no compromise with thieves
Kip Williams
Do the arithmetic. Accepting the $140K figure for Clintons and $120K
for the Bushes, the Clintons were raking it in at about half the
rate of the Bushes. Seven to twelve, dividing the 140 by two for
eight years worth of gifts as opposed to four. Reagan's $2.5 million
house doesn't count, because he paid the money back. Gosh, and where
did that money come from? I get by with a little help from me
friends, yeah yeah yeah. Swing it, Ronald.
Matthew Austern
> Interesting--Bush is accused of stealing the election even though he won it
> by every rule in effect at the time of the election, and Al Gore and his coup
> d'etat team had to try to change the rules three different times in order to
> manufacture a victory...
This is a good sample of what the Republican rhetorical strategy is
going to be. It doesn't matter that the accusations are false or
meaningless, only that they exist. You'll notice, for example, that
"cliffbig" doesn't say what he means by "change the rules three
different times". That's because the details don't matter: a vague
insinuation, which can't be rebutted because there's nothing there to
rebut, is more useful than a specific factual claim.
The purpose of rhetoric like this, of course, isn't to convince
anyone. If the goal was to convince anyone of anything, rhetoric like
this would be useless. Judging it to be useless, however, would be a
big mistake. It is effective and useful. Its uses include:
- Providing cover. People who want to believe that Bush is a
legitimate President have phrases that they can repeat in
support of things they already believe.
- Muddying the discussion. Someone who isn't paying close attention,
and only sees a high level view, will notice that both sides are
accusing each other of terrible things. If see a whole bunch of
complicated claims, and if you aren't paying enough attention to
see that some of the claims are true and other aren't, you'll
probably discount all of them.
- Making discussion more difficult. If political discussion becomes
sufficiently unpleasant, then it get harder for people to pay
attention to it.
- As Phil Agre has pointed out, creating associations between one
thing and another: in this case, an association between "Al Gore"
and "changing the rules". An association can be remembered and
strengthened even if the details are not: look at the way that
the press and general public continues to assume that "Whitewater"
must refer to something vaguely improper, even if almost nobody
can say just what it was that Clinton was supposed to have done
wrong.
The real question is what the appropriate response to rhetorical
techniques like this ought to be. Treating it as if it were
rational argumentation, and responding to it as such, would clearly
be a mistake.
Cliff Biggers
deSelby) wrote:
> Save the Big Lie for a dumber audience. These shameless,
> deliberate distortions and falsehoods have been thoroughly and repeatedly
> demolished. You know they're false, we know they're false. Your side lost,
> and stole the election. Trying to persuade any intelligent, honest person
> otherwise is laughable.
>
> On second thought, keep it up. Don't let us forget who you all really are.
No big lie to it. Bushwon by the rules in force at the time of the
election. His victory was upheld repeatedly. He's the winner, and the
system comes triumphs.
Interestingly, I didn't even vote for him (my candidate was Harry
Browne)... but I recognized his victory as legal and legitimate, and was
most pleased to see that every court except for the all-Democratic Florida
Supreme court upheld that.
cliff
--
"Trust No One... Except Me, Of Course..."
(and if you want to tell me how much you trust me, be sure to remove the
NOSPAM first)
Cliff Biggers
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> Walk-on troll.
Ah, and do they commend you for your incisive intellect and skill at
debate, too?
Sorry, I'm not very comfortable at reciting the party line when I see that
it's wrong... and in this case, it is.
Cliff Biggers
<aus...@research.att.com> wrote:
> This is a good sample of what the Republican rhetorical strategy is
> going to be. It doesn't matter that the accusations are false or
> meaningless, only that they exist. You'll notice, for example, that
> "cliffbig" doesn't say what he means by "change the rules three
> different times". That's because the details don't matter: a vague
> insinuation, which can't be rebutted because there's nothing there to
> rebut, is more useful than a specific factual claim.
Change One: There was a legally established deadline for certifying the
results. Gore didn't like those results, so he called on a partisan court
to legislate from the bench and change that deadline. (His stupidest move:
if he had chosen to let the results be certified and then gone to court to
challenge, he would have had more chance of getting a full statewide
recount by the deadline.)
Change Two: Gore and team didn't like the fact that they weren't gaining
enough Palm Beach votes by the rules implemented at the beginning of the
count, so the team had the rules changed midway through to allow for
improper votes to be counted as Gore votes, and defended it by
intentionally misquoting the decision in an Illinois case regarding dimpled
chads.
Change Three: The Gore team ignored federal guidelines to block thousands
of military ballots from being counted becuase there was no postmark, even
though there was precedent on record to show that postmarking isn't
necesssary if certification of date of receipt was available from a
military official.
> The purpose of rhetoric like this, of course, isn't to convince
> anyone. If the goal was to convince anyone of anything, rhetoric like
> this would be useless.
No one's being convinced of anything by the political discussion here.
What's taking place in many cases is the equivalent of a rabble, a mob
muttering the same basic points of view, and taking umbrage when the world
doesn't agree with them. Everyone's minds are made up on both sides.
And as I've pointed out elsewhere, George W. Bush didn't even get my
vote--Harry Browne did. But the fact that I didn't choose Bush didn't stop
me from recognizing that he won the election and that the party in power at
the time tried its best to manipulate the vote count in order to create
another result.
Cathy Doyle
Avedon Carol wrote:
>
> From an editorial in the Post about how the incredible, unique idea of
> a presidential pardon that may not have been on the up-and-up,
> something _only_ Bill Clinton would do. Gee, where were these people
> when all those Reagan/Bush cronies got away with treason?
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64206-2001Jan29.html
> There's talk in Washington now of trying to revoke the pardon on
> technical grounds, while some in Congress discuss whether the
> presidential pardon power should be somehow curbed. These forays are
> understandable but misguided. The problem isn't with the power but
> with how Mr. Clinton used it. He's a private citizen now, but we
> continue to think he owes more of an explanation than he's given.
Tom Brokaw reported on the NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, I think, that
Dick Cheney's chief of staff was also active on Marc Rich's behalf. I
don't think anyone's going to be overturning this pardon.
Cathy
Lenny Bailes
I don't see it this way. I'm not waiting for art to save me, nor
do I think other people should do this. Instead, I believe that
art can refresh my spirit to the point where I have enough energy
to enjoy political drudgery. I believe that art can also help
one make a synaptic connection between what one knows intellectually
to be true and what one feels in one's bones that one should do about
"the truth."
It's not a question of power, it's a question of spirit. I'm moved by
Wavy Gravy, his clown noses and get-out-of-jail free cards. Also by
his Sartre-ian existentialism about doing what you think is right
because it should be done. (Wavy, by the way, always prefaces his
admiration and praise for musicians like Jerry Garcia and Kate Wolf
at fund-raising events by exhorting attendees to realize that
"The Good Old Days are Right Now!")
As for Dylan, if I'm feeling selfish and finicky about my time (which, as
an imperfect human being, I sometimes am), listening to "Dignity," "George
Jackson," and "Hurricane" reminds me in stereo that injustice tastes sour and
justice tastes sweet. (Actually, I think the Dylan music of 1966 is kind
of dadaistic and ineffectual in terms of its capacity to inspire
the desire for political change -- whatever other aesthetic values it may
have.) But I don't want to get off into a long rap about Dylan music --
which, as you know, I'm capable of doing on the mildest of cues.
Instead, I want to clarify that I'm not yearning for the personal charisma
of media stars to lend credibility to political movements. I'm noting
that sometimes art and music open people's hearts to make connections
they're reluctant to make through "left-brained" logic. Art can
also serve as a stimulant, for some, in the face of fatigue caused by
the politics of attrition.
Some people may not need this stuff in order to turn intellectual beliefs
into deeds. I can see where one might feel a Spartan disdain for the use of
art as an ethical stimulant. But Kip was noting that a number of people
seem to have gone back to sleep, already, after the November election.
And I'm suggesting that art can serve as political caffeine.
(I'm still curious about what Mark Atwood's reaction might be to Terry
Bisson's "Macs," which I notice is on the current Nebula ballot.)
Kevin J. Maroney
>No big lie to it. Bushwon by the rules in force at the time of the
>election. His victory was upheld repeatedly. He's the winner, and the
>system comes triumphs.
Hi, Cliff. Long time no see.
If you truly believe that Bush won the election "by the rules which
were in force at the time", I recommend that you read more about the
election. This is a decent starting point--
Miami Herald:
Not all Florida counties obeyed order to do recount
<http://www.herald.com/content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/078314.htm>
; then you might want to read Justice Ginsberg's analysis of the per
curiam decision in _Bush v. Gore_, starting on page 41 of the document
at <http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/resources/uscdecision1212.pdf>
and then browse around at
<http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/florida.html> for more
documentation of, oh, the Republican staffer riot which shut down the
Miami-Dade recount, the Woodville police checkpoint which suppressed
black voter turnout in a rural Florida district (and other efforts to
supress black votes), the pro-Bush overseas ballots which were counted
*against the rules in effect*, the felonious handling of other
absentee ballots by the Republican party, and on and on.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
cliff
kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
> Hi, Cliff. Long time no see.
Hi--and thanks for the greeting! Hope all is well with you.
> If you truly believe that Bush won the election "by the rules which
> were in force at the time", I recommend that you read more about the
> election.
Everything you recommend, and thousands of more pages, I've already read.
And after reading it all, I still reach the incontrovertible conclusion
that Bush won the election by the rules which were in force at the time.
And trying to discern the unindicated intent of people who were too
damnably stupid to cast a vote properly wasn't one of those rules.
Do I think that either of us will change one another's mind? Nah. But I
just thought that the other point of view needed to be presented--and
believe me, I am very fervent in my belief that the laws of the republic
were upheld in this election, in spite of the Democratic party's attempt to
subvert those laws.
And I know I've mentioned this before, but it's still worth mentioning
again: Bush wasn't even my candidate of choice--Harry Browne was. But Bush
beat Browne and everyone else according to the rules of the election, and
I'm quite pleased that the legitimate outcome of the election was upheld by
the Supreme Court.
cliff
> and then browse around at
> <http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/florida.html> for more
> documentation of, oh, the Republican staffer riot which shut down the
> Miami-Dade recount, the Woodville police checkpoint which suppressed
> black voter turnout in a rural Florida district (and other efforts to
> supress black votes), the pro-Bush overseas ballots which were counted
> *against the rules in effect*, the felonious handling of other
> absentee ballots by the Republican party, and on and on.
Not so in any of the aforementioned cases. The Miami Dade election
officials themselves said that the press "riot" had nothing to do with
their cancellation of the recount, and the "riot" (as you call it) was from
the press and Republicans who were protesting the intent to carry out the
farcical recount behind closed doors and out of the public eye.
There was no checkpoint to suppress black votes; there was a routine police
traffic checkpoint at the same place where it had been held for months
prior to the election (and no one has produced a single voter who was kept
from the polls by these so-called police actions).
The "pro Bush overseas ballots" were counted according to federal
guidelines for the handling of military ballots from soldiers in active
duty. No mishandling at all. (Although I still find it odd that the Demos
wanted to count uncast votes that they had discerned Karnak-like were
purportedly for their candidate, while throwing out legal ballots that
might have been for someone else.)
Didn't you hear? The case about the handling of absentee ballots went to
court? No felonious action. Even the Democratic Florida Supreme Court
refused to reverse that one. Sorry!
See? We're just not changing one another's mind, are we?...
cliff
> Do not make any accusations of bad behaviour yourself without those
> facts to hand.
Good post, Graydon!
And I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I presented the facts
behind my statement in a subsequent post. But I see that, in the eyes of
some others, that seems to be unsatisfactory since my opinion doesn't agree
with their mindset.
Kip Williams
Good point. I suppose there might be some utility in hearing good
responses to the GOP line of the day, but I think I'll pass on the
original posts that you're responding to. I can read ill-informed
mock indignation in the papers any day. No need to hire trolls to
echo the exact same lines. (Odd how all those monkeys on that
apocryphal island start washing their potatoes the same way at the
same time, by the way.)
cliff
>No need to hire trolls to echo the exact same lines.
An odd claim, Kip, since I've never seen a group with so many members who
thought more in lockstep than right here in rasff... I gather that
like-minded curmudgeons love the idea of free thought until it disagrees
with the party line?...
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <3A7A2F30...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>>No need to hire trolls to echo the exact same lines.
> An odd claim, Kip, since I've never seen a group with so many members who
> thought more in lockstep than right here in rasff...
Yep, that's us all right. Keen eye for social dynamics, you've got.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Gore won the undervotes:
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/news/election2000_pbgore.html
cliff
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> Keen eye for social dynamics, you've got.
Thanks, Andrew! You and I finally found a place where we could agree!
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> Sure, it would be nice to have new cultural figures on "our side" with
> the reach and influence of, say, Bob Dylan circa 1966. But it would
> be even nicer if more people stopped wishing for some kind of sweeping
> cultural change to just happen, and started thinking about what they
> can do. Not in the abstract, but _this afternoon_.
>
> That's what the Right does. They have millions of people, they're
> well-organized, and those people get work done. Tedious and often
> boring work. They think about what they can do this afternoon -- and
> they do it. Wrongheaded they may be, but they aren't waiting for art
> to save them. They do the necessary stuff, and consequences ensue.
>
One of my part timers works full time for a local newspaper. He tells
me that they get dozens of faxes a day from right wing groups outlining
the evils of the left. Not even one a day from the left. It seems to
me that were in an ideological war, but only one side takes it
seriously. So even though conservatives are a real minority in this
country they are winning this war.
Warren
--
www.dnapublications.com
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
>
> I have repeatedly heard myself asking myself (ah, the joys of internal
> dialog) where the song refrain like "Four dead in Ohio" is for the travesty
> that was this election.
>
> Of course, the tin soldiers in Bush's army managed not to shoot anybody
> dead, and for that we should be thankful. But they did manage to destroy
> truth, justice, and the American way, and for that we should be outraged.
>
> Some of us are outraged. I am outraged. I am so furious that I am ready
> and willing to do the tedious and boring work that needs to be done to
> effect a change. But what is that work? In a political climate where the
> Democratic members of the Senate won't even stop the ascension of John
> Ashcroft to Attorney General, where is the opposition party I should join?
> My Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, has at least given public voice to the
> outrage, and I have called her office to ask what can be done.... only to
> learn that they apparently don't have a clue, either.
>
> Tonight I attend a local Green Party meeting to see where their heads are
> at. Other ideas, mostly futile, pass through my head. Start printing
> buttons and t-shirts? (That's this week's idea.) Buy a billboard? Write a
> song? Move to Washington and organize a daily picket line at the Supreme
> Court? I'm ready to devote time and resources to this (though not
> fruitlessly). But where is the leader? What is the plan?
>
> At this point the only glimmer of hope I see is the possibility that the
> sitting duck Democrats are playing dead so as to launch a surprise attack
> later.
>
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
Whenever there is an election at any level I'm planing to be on the
phone banks for the Democrats. I'll write to my senator every month to
make sure they know I haven't stopped being angry. If enough people are
doing this then the politicians might think twice before quietly walking
away from the ongoing investigations into the Florida election. We must
make sure that our representatives know that we will not vote for them
next time if they do not support continuing investigations. As someone
recently said to me, remember it took two years for Nixon to fall as a
result of Watergate. The investigations may not look like much at the
moment, but if we all write letters and make phone calls they might
survive long enough to turn into something.
Warren
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
cliff wrote:
>
> Everything you recommend, and thousands of more pages, I've already read.
> And after reading it all, I still reach the incontrovertible conclusion
> that Bush won the election by the rules which were in force at the time.
> And trying to discern the unindicated intent of people who were too
> damnably stupid to cast a vote properly wasn't one of those rules.
>
And I thought the Florida law about whenever the will of the voter can
be ascertained it must be honored was pretty clear. Use what you like
ignore what you don't. Sounds like your for the right and not the left
to me.
Warren
cliff
<dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
> And I thought the Florida law about whenever the will of the voter can
> be ascertained it must be honored was pretty clear.
"Ascertain" is the key word--to make certain, to determine with clarity or
beyond a reasonable doubt. A dimpled chad is not ascertainment--a cast vote
or a hanging chad is. Unfortunately for Al, hanging chads came nowhere near
closing the gap for him, so the change was made from a ballot that allowed
the voter's intent to be ascertained to a ballot that allowed the voter's
intent to be theorized. Big difference. The first was legal, and Al lost.
The second was illegal... and Al still lost!
I wholeheartedly concur that, in a case when the voter's intent can be
determined with certainty, such as a hanging chad, a ballot should be
counted... and they were. It's when we get into feats of mentalism and
prestidigitation as the Palm Beach County electors engaged in that I see an
attempt at a Democratic coup d'etat rearing its ugly head.
And the only fair way to do a recount is to recount everything. If a
dimpled ballot is to be counted--and by law it shouldn't ever count--then
any ballot with a legally cast vote AND a dimpled chad on another
candidate's punch number should thus be disqualified as an overvote. But
even then, I'd argue that the whole process is inherently against the law,
because there is precedent to establish that a dimpled chad isn't a cast
ballot.
Instructions were quite clear there--it's up to the voter as a rseponsible
citizen to check his/her ballot and make sure it's clearly punched. I've
voted for twenty years now, and I've voted on punch cards in every election
until the 1998 and 2000 elections, and I've never deposited my ballot
without checking first, as the sign always instructs, to make sure that all
punches are complete and fully punched. Anyone who isn't interested enough
in the process to check his/her ballot doesn't need to complain if his/her
vote is invalidated. That's not disenfranchisement, that's the penalty of
stupidity...
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
cliff wrote:
>
>> And I thought the Florida law about whenever the will of the voter can
>> be ascertained it must be honored was pretty clear.
>
>
> "Ascertain" is the key word--to make certain, to determine with clarity or
> beyond a reasonable doubt. A dimpled chad is not ascertainment--a cast vote
> or a hanging chad is. Unfortunately for Al, hanging chads came nowhere near
> closing the gap for him, so the change was made from a ballot that allowed
> the voter's intent to be ascertained to a ballot that allowed the voter's
> intent to be theorized. Big difference. The first was legal, and Al lost.
> The second was illegal... and Al still lost!
Bush fought tooth and nail to make sure that those votes were never
counted. He didn't care if they were dimpled or swinging. Your argument
doesn't hold up.
>
> I wholeheartedly concur that, in a case when the voter's intent can be
> determined with certainty, such as a hanging chad, a ballot should be
> counted... and they were. It's when we get into feats of mentalism and
> prestidigitation as the Palm Beach County electors engaged in that I see an
> attempt at a Democratic coup d'etat rearing its ugly head.
Again, Bush fought the entire thing. The voters intent could be
ascertained. Bush didn't even want to count the clear votes and hold
the others for consideration at a later point. Why? because he knew
that he'd lose. Had Bush not gone to court to stop the recount I might
agree with you. But Bush blocked any attempt at a legal recount. The
Supreme Court had no right to step in, this was a sate matter.
>
>
> And the only fair way to do a recount is to recount everything. If a
> dimpled ballot is to be counted--and by law it shouldn't ever count--then
> any ballot with a legally cast vote AND a dimpled chad on another
> candidate's punch number should thus be disqualified as an overvote. But
> even then, I'd argue that the whole process is inherently against the law,
> because there is precedent to establish that a dimpled chad isn't a cast
> ballot.
Sure, but now you want to change the rules. Bush managed to stop the
recount because all of the counties weren't being recounted, but he
could have asked for this recount, in fact he should have. That was
Florida law and that would have been the fair and ethical thing for him
to do. Gore offered it to him and he went on trying to thwart the will
of the people. Instead of having that recount he had his cronies on the
Supreme Court step in at the last moment and issue a ridiculous order.
>
> Instructions were quite clear there--it's up to the voter as a rseponsible
> citizen to check his/her ballot and make sure it's clearly punched. I've
> voted for twenty years now, and I've voted on punch cards in every election
> until the 1998 and 2000 elections, and I've never deposited my ballot
> without checking first, as the sign always instructs, to make sure that all
> punches are complete and fully punched. Anyone who isn't interested enough
> in the process to check his/her ballot doesn't need to complain if his/her
> vote is invalidated. That's not disenfranchisement, that's the penalty of
> stupidity...
Since when? Last I hear we are all afforded the same rights under the
law. What you are saying is that if you're too stupid to figure out the
ballot your vote doesn't count. That, in my opinion makes you not worth
conversing with.
Warren
Lenny Bailes
>
> And the only fair way to do a recount is to recount everything.
You seem to be forgetting that Gore asked Bush to agree to a complete recount
of the Florida votes very early on and Bush refused.
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:01:27 GMT,
>ideefixe <idee...@earthlink.net> scripsit:
>>Some of us are outraged. I am outraged. I am so furious that I am ready
>>and willing to do the tedious and boring work that needs to be done to
>>effect a change. But what is that work? In a political climate where the
>>Democratic members of the Senate won't even stop the ascension of John
>>Ashcroft to Attorney General, where is the opposition party I should join?
>>My Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, has at least given public voice to the
>>outrage, and I have called her office to ask what can be done.... only to
>>learn that they apparently don't have a clue, either.
>
>You need something to be for.
>
>The Republican party is _for_ something; it's something remarkably
>vile, but they're for it, and they've found a positive way to spin it,
>and they're relentless in pursuit of it.
>
>What are you for? How to do you explain that to people?
The only thing the Republican Party has consistently been for is not
something they have been campaigning on, Graydon, so I consider this a
red herring. The Republicans, clearly, are for _themselves_. That's
what their actions have shown us.
The Republicans campaigned on "Gore is a liar and he won't deliver
what he promises, but we will," mixed with, "George Bush would be more
fun to sit next to on an airplane (if you have an IQ of seven)."
Are we for sitting next to fun guys on airplanes? Well, I guess just
about everyone is, but I doubt most of us expect our elected officials
to provide it.
This week's issue of SUPERMAN INACTION COMICS says: "What's so funny
about truth, justice, and the American way?" I'll go with that. I'm
for individual freedoms and equality under the law. I'm for the Bill
of Rights. I'm for making sure everyone gets to vote, and every legal
vote is counted.
But saying that isn't all it's gonna take. Finding some way to defeat
the Republican lie machine is what it's really gonna take. Finding
some way to stop the DLC from constantly trying to pull the Democratic
party even further to the right while sabotaging anyone who is even
slightly to the left of them is what it's gonna take, too. But
mostly, getting off your asses and getting organized is what it's
gonna take, because no number of people who are "for" the right things
and full of snappy sound-bites is gonna get anywhere if what they
believe can't penetrate the wall of lies and silences passes for
"news" in America.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
>av...@grumer.org (Avram Grumer) writes:
>>
>> Once that's done, a few more things I'm for: Freedom of speech.
>> Technoliberation[1]. Sex education, and widespread availability of birth
>> control technology (and that includes abortion). National health care.
>> The right to own firearms, licensed if necessary. More and better mass
>> transit.
>
>Pity that neither major party is for those things.
Well, the Democratic Leadership Council sure ain't, and aside from the
real libertarians in the Republican Party who believe in a few of
them, neither is the Republican leadership.
But:
- Most registered Democrats are for sex education, widespread
availability of birth control technology, national health care and
more and better mass transit. So, for that matter, are a lot of
Republicans.
- Freedom of speech is a tricky issue, but once again I remind you
that the Repubs have even more to answer for than the Democrats do.
However, the more people learn about the internet, the less popular
repressive controls on it are with them. (They actually did citizen
jury studies on this here, where equal numbers of tech civil
libertarians and raving anti-civil liberties, "for the sake of the
children" types were allowed to present their cases as expert
witnesses, and the result was that the majority of the people on the
juries who started off believing in lots of restrictions came away
favoring privacy and free expression.) Absolutely everyone believes
that _they_ should have the right to free speech, even if they
suspect/believe that certain other people shouldn't. But the majority
can be swayed by facts, if they are presented to them.
- Most rank and file members of both parties believe in more and
better mass transit.
- There could probably be a more sensible debate on guns - and the War
on Some Drugs - if we actually insisted on discussing them honestly.
That's something the current crop of pols seem uninterested in doing,
for the most part. But an open revolt by the libertarians in the
Republican party could very well make a difference on this issue.
(Pro-decriminalization types in the Democratic Party are taken for
granted, and the DLC bunch would rather pretend we aren't there.)
If people are actually paying attention to what's going on around
them, they can elect people at the local level and get rid of the DLC
and Heritage Foundation types. Getting out the vote isn't just about
presidential, or even federal, politics. Whose running for Sheriff in
your town? Remember: Spiro Agnew started off by getting elected to
the school board. Both parties need to be taken back from the
right-wing, and people of conscience need to get out there, find out
who the candidates are - what they stand for and who their friends are
- and vote for the real people instead of the infiltrators. Bounce
your local DLC or Cato Institute-backed Senator from the _primary_
ticket. Go door to door if you have to.
Avedon Carol
(Cliff Biggers) wrote:
>In article <95cq9i$gc4o8$1...@ID-63441.news.dfncis.de>, scr...@mtvi.com (Soren
>deSelby) wrote:
>> Save the Big Lie for a dumber audience. These shameless,
>> deliberate distortions and falsehoods have been thoroughly and repeatedly
>> demolished. You know they're false, we know they're false. Your side lost,
>> and stole the election. Trying to persuade any intelligent, honest person
>> otherwise is laughable.
>>
>> On second thought, keep it up. Don't let us forget who you all really are.
>
>No big lie to it. Bushwon by the rules in force at the time of the
>election.
The rules in force at the time of the election were that the ballots
must be counted, and that hand-recounts were normal.
>His victory was upheld repeatedly. He's the winner, and the
>system comes triumphs.
Which system is that? Certainly not democracy.
>Interestingly, I didn't even vote for him (my candidate was Harry
>Browne)... but I recognized his victory as legal and legitimate, and was
>most pleased to see that every court except for the all-Democratic Florida
>Supreme court upheld that.
If I didn't know you were really much smarter than you seem, I'd
assume your newspaper of choice is /The Wall Street Journal/, your
news channel of choice is Fox, and you think Rush is right most of the
time. But that can't possibly be true...can it?
Avedon Carol
<john....@verizon.net> wrote:
> "The four-year total of gifts that she and her husband took
>from wealth friends was, as Mrs. Clinton notes, not out of
>proportion with other first families. But the Clintons' gifts
>came in a glut in the last year, when she should have been
>putting her new role as an incoming senator ahead of her
>transitory status as a departing first lady."
>
> Creative, huh?
The most creative part is pretending that the media wouldn't have been
all over them like flies on shit if they'd accepted them during the
last four years. This way they kept it from being a distraction until
it didn't matter anymore. Why the hell should anyone care whether
they accepted them throughout that period or all in one lump?
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>Tom Brokaw reported on the NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, I think, that
>Dick Cheney's chief of staff was also active on Marc Rich's behalf. I
>don't think anyone's going to be overturning this pardon.
Hm. Cheney's CoS was active on Rich's behalf, but only _Clinton_ was
sleazy for favoring it.
Can't get more explicit than that, can ya?
Andrew Plotkin
> Whenever there is an election at any level I'm planing to be on the
> phone banks for the Democrats. I'll write to my senator every month to
> make sure they know I haven't stopped being angry.
I could write to *my* senator, but, well, he's Jesse Helms.
Sigh.
If they really do summon Clinton to explain about his pardons, someone
please suggest to an appropriate congresscritter that he/she stand up
and recite President Bush's inauguration speech. Word for word. At
least, the parts about bipartisanship, working together, and putting
past rivalries behind us.
If that doesn't work, start reciting all the names of people pardoned
by Reagan and Old Bush.
cliff
<dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
> hat you are saying is that if you're too stupid to figure out the
> ballot your vote doesn't count.
Yep. That sums it up. If you're too stupid to figure out HOW to vote or to
ask for help if you can't figure it out, then your vote shouldn't count. I
like that system a lot--I'd rather have my representative leaders chosen by
intelligent people who can vote responsibly.
cliff
cliff
> You seem to be forgetting that Gore asked Bush to agree to a complete recount
> of the Florida votes very early on and Bush refused.
And I don't blame him! If I'd won by a vote counted by the standards in
place at the time of the election, and then I had still won even after a
biased recount of highly pro-Democratic precincts, why in the world would I
ask for a recount? The winner doesn't NEED a recount.
cliff
cliff
> Which system is that? Certainly not democracy.
No, thankfully. We're a republic; I'd never want to be part of a democracy.
> If I didn't know you were really much smarter than you seem, I'd
> assume your newspaper of choice is /The Wall Street Journal/, your
> news channel of choice is Fox, and you think Rush is right most of the
> time. But that can't possibly be true...can it?
Don't read the WSJ, don't listen to Rush--but I DO find Fox News to be more
balanced on the whole that MSNBC or CNN. Rarely spend a lot of time with
any of 'em, though.
cliff
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> If that doesn't work, start reciting all the names of people pardoned
> by Reagan and Old Bush.
And how many of 'em got to buy pardons for campaign donations outright like
Rich did?
Kevin J. Maroney
>I could write to *my* senator, but, well, he's Jesse Helms.
Last time I checked, North Carolina had two senators. John Edwards
(D-NC) voted against Ashcroft, and made a very nice speech in the
process of doing so, a speech which said "In conclusion, at a time
when our Nation desperately needs unifying leaders, Senator Ashcroft
is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time."
Kevin J. Maroney
>Everything you recommend, and thousands of more pages, I've already read.
>And after reading it all, I still reach the incontrovertible conclusion
>that Bush won the election by the rules which were in force at the time.
>And trying to discern the unindicated intent of people who were too
>damnably stupid to cast a vote properly wasn't one of those rules.
Strangely, the majority of the Florida Supreme Court believed that the
laws of the state of Florida precisely *do* include provisions for
trying to determine the intent of the voter even when the ballot is
not properly prepared. Those are, you know, the "rules which were in
force at the time". And six of the justices of the US Supreme Court
agreed with them (that is, everyone except for Rhenquist, Scalia, and
Thomas). The per curiam decision of the Court held that the "rules
which were in force at the time" were being followed, but that those
rules failed to meet a Constitutional standard of Equal Protection;
only three justices held the standard you present, and an equal number
of justices thought that those three were acting shamefully.
>Do I think that either of us will change one another's mind? Nah. But I
>just thought that the other point of view needed to be presented--and
>believe me, I am very fervent in my belief that the laws of the republic
>were upheld in this election, in spite of the Democratic party's attempt to
>subvert those laws.
I appreciate that. I hadn't previously run across anyone without a
clear horse in the race (e.g., the Chief Justice) who had presented
the view you did.
>And I know I've mentioned this before, but it's still worth mentioning
>again: Bush wasn't even my candidate of choice--Harry Browne was. But Bush
>beat Browne and everyone else according to the rules of the election, and
>I'm quite pleased that the legitimate outcome of the election was upheld by
>the Supreme Court.
I didn't mistake you for a Bush supporter after your first post.
Andrew Plotkin
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>I could write to *my* senator, but, well, he's Jesse Helms.
> Last time I checked, North Carolina had two senators.
I am an egg. A cracked egg, apparently.
Somehow it didn't occur to me that the senators would be anything
other than "Jesse Helms, and Jesse Helms's puppet." I'll just go pour
rocks on my head.
(Neither of them was elected this year, and I wasn't living in NC in
1998.)
> John Edwards
> (D-NC) voted against Ashcroft, and made a very nice speech in the
> process of doing so
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/020101_ashcroft.html
...now that I look.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Just once, I'd like to vote for the better of two goods.
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
cliff wrote:
> In article <3A7A4CFC...@iname.com>, Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
> <dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> hat you are saying is that if you're too stupid to figure out the
>> ballot your vote doesn't count.
>
>
> Yep. That sums it up. If you're too stupid to figure out HOW to vote or to
> ask for help if you can't figure it out, then your vote shouldn't count. I
> like that system a lot--I'd rather have my representative leaders chosen by
> intelligent people who can vote responsibly.
>
> cliff
>
Then you want to change the rules after the fact. Does the word
hypocrite mean anything to you?
Warren
Kevin J. Maroney
>Not so in any of the aforementioned cases. The Miami Dade election
>officials themselves said that the press "riot" had nothing to do with
>their cancellation of the recount, and the "riot" (as you call it) was from
>the press and Republicans who were protesting the intent to carry out the
>farcical recount behind closed doors and out of the public eye.
As has been pointed out, the Miami-Dade election board were *not*
trying to move "behind closed doors"; they had just voted to move away
from the noisy protesters, but there was a) a transparent door for the
press and b) a body of observers from both parties watching all of the
proceedings.
I did not coin the term "riot" for the escalation of the demonstration
which followed that decision; the first person I saw call it that was
Paul Gigot, who was *praising* the rioters. I have continued to use
the word "riot" because it seems like an apt description of the
actions of a group of people who resort to violence--well-reported
kickings and beatings as well as property damage--to try to enforce
their political will.
>There was no checkpoint to suppress black votes; there was a routine police
>traffic checkpoint at the same place where it had been held for months
>prior to the election (and no one has produced a single voter who was kept
>from the polls by these so-called police actions).
This is just flat wrong. Both of the wire service articles on the
police checkpoint emphasize that no previous checkpoint had been held
at that location; in fact, one of the articles
<http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2000/11/08/vote1108_01.html>
has this quote:
[Highway patrol spokesman Maj. Ken] Howes said the sergeant who
set up the checkpoint only chose the location because it had not
been used in the past.
Howes also said:
"This was a checkpoint that had not been approved by the district
commander," said highway patrol spokesman Maj. Ken Howes. "The
location had not been approved and no notice had gone out to the
news media, both of which are requirements."
Not routine; not in "the same place where it had been held for
months", according to the Florida Highway Patrol.
>The "pro Bush overseas ballots" were counted according to federal
>guidelines for the handling of military ballots from soldiers in active
>duty. No mishandling at all. (Although I still find it odd that the Demos
>wanted to count uncast votes that they had discerned Karnak-like were
>purportedly for their candidate, while throwing out legal ballots that
>might have been for someone else.)
If by "The Democrats" you mean "The Gore Campaign", they didn't move
to throw out the military ballots. In fact, the Gore campaign
supported counting all of the overseas ballots, consistent with their
position that all votes should be counted.
And Florida state law requires all overseas ballots to be postmarked,
and postmarked on or before election day. This is not news. This is
"the rules that were in place at the time of the election". The
ballots which had no postmark, or a late postmark were counted.
>Didn't you hear? The case about the handling of absentee ballots went to
>court? No felonious action. Even the Democratic Florida Supreme Court
>refused to reverse that one. Sorry!
The actions were felonious on their face. That doesn't mean that a
charge was ever going to be brought. There's a long history of that
throughout America; it doesn't change the fact that there were massive
irregularities.
>See? We're just not changing one another's mind, are we?...
No, I suppose not. Especially if you're going to make flat
pronouncements which are contrary to recorded fact.
cliff
<dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
> Then you want to change the rules after the fact.
Nope. I see the rules in effect as requiring an indication of the clear
intent of the voter, which could only come about if the voter voted
properly. Dimpled chad nonsense is produced by (a) voters who didn't wish
to vote for that candidate, or (b) voters who didn't vote properly. So
there's no clear intent, and the vote doesn't count.
Matthew Austern
> If I didn't know you were really much smarter than you seem, I'd
> assume your newspaper of choice is /The Wall Street Journal/, your
> news channel of choice is Fox, and you think Rush is right most of the
> time. But that can't possibly be true...can it?
I think that if you consistently read The Wall Street Journal you'd
probably have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the US. It's
one of the country's better papers. Of course, the editorial page is
a snakepit and there's no good reason to read it unless you've decided
that you haven't yet received your recommended daily allowance of
rage.
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
cliff wrote:
> In article <3A7A64...@slip.net>, len...@slip.net wrote:
>
>> You seem to be forgetting that Gore asked Bush to agree to a complete recount
>> of the Florida votes very early on and Bush refused.
>
>
> And I don't blame him! If I'd won by a vote counted by the standards in
> place at the time of the election, and then I had still won even after a
> biased recount of highly pro-Democratic precincts, why in the world would I
> ask for a recount? The winner doesn't NEED a recount.
>
> cliff
>
There's no winner until after the election is certified and at that
point the count hadn't been certified. Isn't it great the way
Republicans, yes I think you're a republican regardless of who you voted
for, play fast and loose with reality. I do blame him for it and I
think he made a big tactical error by not accepting Gore's offer of a
recount. Had Bush accepted it, he and Gore could have hammered out
standards that would have worked for both or them. Then if he'd won the
specter of illegitimacy would have been lifted. Millions of people who
are angry and planning to do something about it wouldn't be. Bush has
just created a very energized and angry opposition group that didn't
have to exist.
Warren
Janice Gelb
>
>Everything you recommend, and thousands of more pages, I've already read.
>And after reading it all, I still reach the incontrovertible conclusion
>that Bush won the election by the rules which were in force at the time.
>And trying to discern the unindicated intent of people who were too
>damnably stupid to cast a vote properly wasn't one of those rules.
>
Several of the Supreme Court justices made it clear that one
of the reasons for their decision was the lack of time for a
truly fair recount. The reason for that lack of time was the
delaying tactics used by the Republicans early on to either
halt or severely delay state- and court-mandated recounts.
In response to a later point of yours, not all of the kicked-out
ballots had to do with chads. In Lake County alone, a Republican
stronghold that uses optical-scan ballots, Gore picked up 130
votes in a recount of "overvote" ballots where people had marked
the candidate of their choice and also provided the name in the
write-in section just to make sure they voted for the candidate
they wanted. There was absolutely no question in anyone's mind
what the intent of the voter was when viewing these ballots.
[P.S. Hi, Cliff! When I suggested that you start reading this
group, I didn't realize you'd start out with such a bang :-> ]
---
*********************************************************************
Janice Gelb | Just speaking for me, not Sun.
janic...@eng.sun.com | http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/
"The legal system prevents us from killing each other. The
etiquette system prevents us from driving each other crazy."
-- Miss Manners
Ed Dravecky III
>
> Ah, and do they commend you for your incisive intellect and
> skill at debate, too?
We commend him for not being a hit-and-run troll, his incisive
intellect, and his skill at debate, yes. Any other questions?
--
Ed Dravecky III
ed3 at panix dot com
Ed Dravecky III
> And I don't blame him! If I'd won by a vote counted by the
> standards in place at the time of the election, and then I had
> still won even after a biased recount of highly pro-Democratic
> precincts, why in the world would I ask for a recount? The
> winner doesn't NEED a recount.
The _real_ winner should also not object to a recount. If he
really has the most votes, a recount will show that he has the
most votes. If his victory is merely an illusion then he will
do everything he can to maintain the illusion.
That most or many of the votes were recounted is a Big Lie.
Ed Dravecky III
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> > If that doesn't work, start reciting all the names of people
> > pardoned by Reagan and Old Bush.
>
> And how many of 'em got to buy pardons for campaign donations
> outright like Rich did?
A bunch on 'em. Oh, I'm sorry, George Steinbrenner was pardoned
for the good of the Republic? My mistake. <sheesh>
Avram Grumer
cliffNO...@earthlink.net (cliff) wrote:
> Yep. That sums it up. If you're too stupid to figure out HOW to vote
> or to ask for help if you can't figure it out, then your vote shouldn't
> count.
I propose that for the next election, you should have to place your vote
on a punch-card attatched in a misaligned frame over full chad bins that
keep you from punching cleanly through the card. At a polling place
that's so busy that all of the attendants are short-tempered and
ovreworked. And make you stand on long lines. Oh, and first we put
contact lenses on you that give you blurry vision. And a bladder
condition.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"All this talk of legitimacy is way overblown."
-- James Baker III
Seen on ABC's "This Week", 10 December 2000
Avram Grumer
> Nope. I see the rules in effect as requiring an indication of the clear
> intent of the voter, which could only come about if the voter voted
> properly. Dimpled chad nonsense is produced by (a) voters who didn't
> wish to vote for that candidate, or (b) voters who didn't vote properly.
> So there's no clear intent, and the vote doesn't count.
No. The entire purpose of the "clear intent of the voter" rule is to
provide a guideline for dealing with ballots that _weren't_ filled out
properly.
cliff
kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
> As has been pointed out, the Miami-Dade election board were *not*
> trying to move "behind closed doors"; they had just voted to move away
> from the noisy protesters, but there was a) a transparent door for the
> press and b) a body of observers from both parties watching all of the
> proceedings.
According to the press on hand, the "transparent door" was a wooden door
with one window--and the table where vote manufacturing... err, counting
was to take place was located almost twenty-five feet from that door. Even
so, there was no way the press could fully observe the count through that
door. Meanwhile, Republican observers WERE being blocked from the viewing.
> This is just flat wrong. Both of the wire service articles on the
> police checkpoint emphasize that no previous checkpoint had been held
> at that location.
Major Ken Howes was quoted by CBS news as saying that checkpoints on that
stretch of road had been used in the past, but not at that specific
intersection, which was 1.4 miles away from the nearest polling station.
The traffic checkpoint had not been approved, Howes said, but CBS news also
reported that a review indicated that fewer than 1/3 of the traffic
checkpoints set up in the month prior to the elction had been approved,
either; the use of these checkpoints is not illegal even if advance notice
is not given, although there is a departmental requirement that they should
be reported and the press should be notified in advance. Cases in which
charges have been filed even though advance notification was not given have
been upheld in court, CBS News reported.
> If by "The Democrats" you mean "The Gore Campaign", they didn't move
> to throw out the military ballots. In fact, the Gore campaign
> supported counting all of the overseas ballots, consistent with their
> position that all votes should be counted.
Democratic challengers blocked the counting of military ballots under the
direction of Democratic lawyer/advisor Mark Herron. "Bush comfortably won
Florida's overseas absentee vote by 1,380 votes to Vice-President Al Gore's
750 but, after vigorous challenges by Gore canvassers, 1,527 of the postal
ballots, many of them from soldiers and sailors on active service, were
rejected using Herron's bluprint. " His challenge was the absence of a
postmark, even though federal guidelines clearly indicated that a postmark
was not required from military on active service.
> The actions were felonious on their face. That doesn't mean that a
> charge was ever going to be brought. There's a long history of that
> throughout America; it doesn't change the fact that there were massive
> irregularities.
A judge ruled that there was no felony committed, and the Supreme Court
allowed that decision to stand that by refusing to hear the case. That
means no felony took place. Even though "you're going to make flat
pronouncements which are contrary to recorded fact," as you phrased it.
Kevin J. Maroney
>I propose that for the next election, you should have to place your vote
>on a punch-card attatched in a misaligned frame over full chad bins that
>keep you from punching cleanly through the card. At a polling place
>that's so busy that all of the attendants are short-tempered and
>ovreworked. And make you stand on long lines. Oh, and first we put
>contact lenses on you that give you blurry vision. And a bladder
>condition.
Those are *some* contact lenses.
James Mcadams
Warren Lapine & Angela kessler <dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
[re: the proposed Florida-wide ballot recount]
> Had Bush accepted it, he and Gore could have hammered out
>standards that would have worked for both or them. Then if he'd won the
>specter of illegitimacy would have been lifted.
Actually, it would have been their staffs to work out standards.
Does anyone really think that the "specter of illegitimacy" would have
been any less in a recount organized by Bill Daley? *grin*
Yes it was a hideous mess, and yes it was mishandled several
times and ways. The scary part (for me) is the repeated statements by
election officials to the effect of "this happens, it just never mattered
this much". Pity there isn't a way to sue the election boards for
negligence.
JIMMC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McAdams | Do,
jmca...@interaccess.com | or Do Not.
630-859-6902 | There is no "Try". - Yoda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cliff
> There's no winner until after the election is certified and at that
> point the count hadn't been certified. Isn't it great the way
> Republicans, yes I think you're a republican regardless of who you voted
> for, play fast and loose with reality. I do blame him for it and I
> think he made a big tactical error by not accepting Gore's offer of a
> recount. Had Bush accepted it, he and Gore could have hammered out
> standards that would have worked for both or them. Then if he'd won the
> specter of illegitimacy would have been lifted. Millions of people who
> are angry and planning to do something about it wouldn't be. Bush has
> just created a very energized and angry opposition group that didn't
> have to exist.
The election certification was improperly halted by the Florida Supreme
Court, who usurped power without cause. Bad move for Gore; had he let it be
certified on time, challenged in court and asked for his statewide recount
rather than delaying the results, he would have had time under the Supreme
Court's ruling to request his recount. He tried to do an end-run and
circumvent the outcome of the election, and he blew it.
When you're the winner, it's not a tactical mistake to not ask for a recount.
And I guess the fact that you think I'm a republican makes me one, just as
the fact that you think Al Gore won an election makes him the winner.
Kevin J. Maroney
>A bunch on 'em. Oh, I'm sorry, George Steinbrenner was pardoned
>for the good of the Republic? My mistake. <sheesh>
Which is doubly wondrous, since Steinbrenner's criminal conviction was
due to illegal campaign contributions.
Incidentally, I don't know about anyone else here, but it strikes me
as wondrously odd that we are expected to believe that Marc Rich was
funnelling money to Clinton through his *ex* wife. Most people I know
who have ex-wives wouldn't trust the ex-wife with a quarter for a
shopping cart, let along hundreds of thousands of dollars in slush
funding.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Somehow it didn't occur to me that the senators would be anything
>other than "Jesse Helms, and Jesse Helms's puppet." I'll just go pour
>rocks on my head.
I was a North Carolinian for 16 years. The tradition during most of
Helms's reign has been that if Helms's junior senator is a Republican,
he's a Helms clone (Lauch Faircloth, John East), but if he's a
Democrat, he's Helms's worst enemy (Terry Sanford).
John Edwards is an anti-Helmsian.
cliff
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com wrote:
> In response to a later point of yours, not all of the kicked-out
> ballots had to do with chads. In Lake County alone, a Republican
> stronghold that uses optical-scan ballots, Gore picked up 130
> votes in a recount of "overvote" ballots where people had marked
> the candidate of their choice and also provided the name in the
> write-in section just to make sure they voted for the candidate
> they wanted. There was absolutely no question in anyone's mind
> what the intent of the voter was when viewing these ballots.
Which supports my contention that if Al Gore had played by the rules from
the beginning and let the results be certified on November 14th, then
challenge for a statewide recount through the courts, he might have had
time to have the results counted. (I would have have also demanded a
recount of the manufactured Palm Beach County votes, but that's another
issue.)
> [P.S. Hi, Cliff! When I suggested that you start reading this
> group, I didn't realize you'd start out with such a bang :-> ]
Thanks!
I have always had a problem with "party line" thinking...
Ed Dravecky III
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
> > No need to hire trolls to echo the exact same lines.
>
> An odd claim, Kip, since I've never seen a group with so many
> members who thought more in lockstep than right here in
> rasff... I gather that like-minded curmudgeons love the idea of
> free thought until it disagrees with the party line?...
You owe me a new monitor unless I can get all of the cocoa off of
this one, mister. *This* group in lockstep? ROTFLMAO.
cliff
> We commend him for not being a hit-and-run troll, his incisive
> intellect, and his skill at debate, yes. Any other questions?
Ooh, you can call names!...
cliff
> The _real_ winner should also not object to a recount. If he
> really has the most votes, a recount will show that he has the
> most votes. If his victory is merely an illusion then he will
> do everything he can to maintain the illusion.
Nah. When the other team wants to change the rules and manufacture votes,
as was done in Palm Beach County, there's no reason to willingly take part
in a farcical recount.
cliff
av...@grumer.org (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> I propose that for the next election, you should have to place your vote
> on a punch-card attatched in a misaligned frame over full chad bins that
> keep you from punching cleanly through the card. At a polling place
> that's so busy that all of the attendants are short-tempered and
> ovreworked. And make you stand on long lines. Oh, and first we put
> contact lenses on you that give you blurry vision. And a bladder
> condition.
And I'd still vote correctly.
Avedon Carol
(cliff) wrote:
>"Ascertain" is the key word--to make certain, to determine with clarity or
>beyond a reasonable doubt. A dimpled chad is not ascertainment--a cast vote
>or a hanging chad is. Unfortunately for Al, hanging chads came nowhere near
>closing the gap for him, so the change was made from a ballot that allowed
>the voter's intent to be ascertained to a ballot that allowed the voter's
>intent to be theorized. Big difference. The first was legal, and Al lost.
>The second was illegal... and Al still lost!
How about an overvote in which the voter punched the hole for Gore,
and then punched the write-in hole and wrote Gore's name in. Would
you care to venture a guess what the voter's intent was? There were
enough such ballots to swing the vote the other way.
>I wholeheartedly concur that, in a case when the voter's intent can be
>determined with certainty, such as a hanging chad, a ballot should be
>counted... and they were. It's when we get into feats of mentalism and
>prestidigitation as the Palm Beach County electors engaged in that I see an
>attempt at a Democratic coup d'etat rearing its ugly head.
"That the Palm Beach County electors were alleged to be engaged in,"
you mean. Bear in mind that the /Washington Post/ completed their
evaluation of the ballots and in their count, Gore did win. The
/Post/ is not, despite what you may have read, inclined toward a
liberal, or even middle-of-the-road, position.
>And the only fair way to do a recount is to recount everything.
Sure. The Republicans worked to prevent that, too. And there's a
reason for that.
>If a
>dimpled ballot is to be counted--and by law it shouldn't ever count--then
>any ballot with a legally cast vote AND a dimpled chad on another
>candidate's punch number should thus be disqualified as an overvote.
What if the "overvote" is a write-in for the same candidate?
>But
>even then, I'd argue that the whole process is inherently against the law,
>because there is precedent to establish that a dimpled chad isn't a cast
>ballot.
Not really. The long-established precedent is that you have
hand-counts and try to determine the will of the voter. Every
analysis that has done this, even excluding dimpled chad, found that
Gore won. On Gore/Gore write-in overvotes alone, Gore won.
>Instructions were quite clear there--it's up to the voter as a rseponsible
>citizen to check his/her ballot and make sure it's clearly punched. I've
>voted for twenty years now, and I've voted on punch cards in every election
>until the 1998 and 2000 elections, and I've never deposited my ballot
>without checking first, as the sign always instructs, to make sure that all
>punches are complete and fully punched. Anyone who isn't interested enough
>in the process to check his/her ballot doesn't need to complain if his/her
>vote is invalidated. That's not disenfranchisement, that's the penalty of
>stupidity...
Doesn't matter. According to the rules in place at the time, hundreds
of Republican ballots were illegal, but they were counted. Why?
Because Republicans who were sloppy or lazy or stupid got extra help
after the fact. If "the rules in place at the time" are the rules we
have to go by, those ballots are thrown out and Gore won.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
<dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
>Since when? Last I hear we are all afforded the same rights under the
>law. What you are saying is that if you're too stupid to figure out the
>ballot your vote doesn't count. That, in my opinion makes you not worth
>conversing with.
But just in case you're too stupid _and_ a Republican, we give you
machines that make it harder to make mistakes, and we have our
election supervisors make sure that errors on your ballot applications
are corrected, and then if the Republicans _still_ can't manage to get
enough votes to beat the Democrats, we get our Heritage Foundation
cronies to stop the count.
Avedon Carol
(cliff) wrote:
>In article <3A7A4CFC...@iname.com>, Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
><dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> hat you are saying is that if you're too stupid to figure out the
>> ballot your vote doesn't count.
>
>Yep. That sums it up. If you're too stupid to figure out HOW to vote or to
>ask for help if you can't figure it out, then your vote shouldn't count. I
>like that system a lot--I'd rather have my representative leaders chosen by
>intelligent people who can vote responsibly.
No, actually you're saying if you're "too stupid" _and_ you don't live
in an area where the system cheats for you. Republican voters made
lots of stupid mistakes, too. But they were using more expensive
machines that made it harder to make mistakes in the first place, and
helped them correct errors. They also had extra help before the
election from people who illegally amended their ballot applications.
Stupid Democrats lost their right to have their votes count, but
stupid Republicans got extra help and their votes still got counted.
If you're going to discount the votes of stupid Democrats, you have to
discount the stupid Republican votes, too.
(I mean, you can't get much more stupid than people who say they voted
for Bush because he was more honest than Gore.)
Avedon Carol
<kmar...@ungames.com> wrote:
>clif...@earthlink.net (cliff) wrote:
>>Everything you recommend, and thousands of more pages, I've already read.
>>And after reading it all, I still reach the incontrovertible conclusion
>>that Bush won the election by the rules which were in force at the time.
>>And trying to discern the unindicated intent of people who were too
>>damnably stupid to cast a vote properly wasn't one of those rules.
>
>Strangely, the majority of the Florida Supreme Court believed that the
>laws of the state of Florida precisely *do* include provisions for
>trying to determine the intent of the voter even when the ballot is
>not properly prepared. Those are, you know, the "rules which were in
>force at the time". And six of the justices of the US Supreme Court
>agreed with them (that is, everyone except for Rhenquist, Scalia, and
>Thomas). The per curiam decision of the Court held that the "rules
>which were in force at the time" were being followed, but that those
>rules failed to meet a Constitutional standard of Equal Protection;
>only three justices held the standard you present, and an equal number
>of justices thought that those three were acting shamefully.
Another drum I want to keep beating here: Half of those US Supreme
Court Justices who disagreed with the final verdict were also
Republicans. It's not just a Democratic partisan position.
>>Do I think that either of us will change one another's mind? Nah. But I
>>just thought that the other point of view needed to be presented--and
>>believe me, I am very fervent in my belief that the laws of the republic
>>were upheld in this election, in spite of the Democratic party's attempt to
>>subvert those laws.
>
>I appreciate that. I hadn't previously run across anyone without a
>clear horse in the race (e.g., the Chief Justice) who had presented
>the view you did.
On the other hand, it's not as if we needed to have this position
presented to us, since it's the one the RNC (and their mouthpieces in
the press) have uniformly promoted since very early in the count.
>>And I know I've mentioned this before, but it's still worth mentioning
>>again: Bush wasn't even my candidate of choice--Harry Browne was. But Bush
>>beat Browne and everyone else according to the rules of the election, and
>>I'm quite pleased that the legitimate outcome of the election was upheld by
>>the Supreme Court.
>
>I didn't mistake you for a Bush supporter after your first post.
I have this feeling that all the Browne supporters were definitely
reading the same news sources - they all seem to believe this stuff
even more than the Bush voters do.
Avedon Carol
(cliff) wrote:
>In article <2n0k7t8dsv3i3k4en...@4ax.com>,
>kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
>
>> and then browse around at
>> <http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/florida.html> for more
>> documentation of, oh, the Republican staffer riot which shut down the
>> Miami-Dade recount, the Woodville police checkpoint which suppressed
>> black voter turnout in a rural Florida district (and other efforts to
>> supress black votes), the pro-Bush overseas ballots which were counted
>> *against the rules in effect*, the felonious handling of other
>> absentee ballots by the Republican party, and on and on.
>
>Not so in any of the aforementioned cases. The Miami Dade election
>officials themselves said that the press "riot" had nothing to do with
>their cancellation of the recount, and the "riot" (as you call it) was from
>the press and Republicans who were protesting the intent to carry out the
>farcical recount behind closed doors and out of the public eye.
The Republicans themselves actually bragged about having staged the
riot and stopped the vote. They were so proud of themselves that they
said so in /The Wall Street Journal/.
>There was no checkpoint to suppress black votes; there was a routine police
>traffic checkpoint at the same place where it had been held for months
>prior to the election (and no one has produced a single voter who was kept
>from the polls by these so-called police actions).
We've been over all this in here in detail. It was not "routine", it
was not "in the same place where it had been held for months prior to
the election", and many people (of all colors) have testified that the
police were clearly trying to hassle black voters. In fact, the local
police have said themselves that the checkpoint was not in accord with
procedure.
>The "pro Bush overseas ballots" were counted according to federal
>guidelines for the handling of military ballots from soldiers in active
>duty. No mishandling at all. (Although I still find it odd that the Demos
>wanted to count uncast votes that they had discerned Karnak-like were
>purportedly for their candidate, while throwing out legal ballots that
>might have been for someone else.)
The rules in effect said that _no_ ballots that were received after
the deadline, or unsigned, or unpostmarked, or postmarked after 7
November, could be counted. Those rules were no less sacrosanct than
the rules you insist had to be enforced no matter what.
>See? We're just not changing one another's mind, are we?...
No, but we keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Avedon Carol
(cliff) wrote:
>In article <gh8k7t82qao93pc5d...@4ax.com>, ave...@cix.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>> Which system is that? Certainly not democracy.
>
>No, thankfully. We're a republic; I'd never want to be part of a democracy.
>
>> If I didn't know you were really much smarter than you seem, I'd
>> assume your newspaper of choice is /The Wall Street Journal/, your
>> news channel of choice is Fox, and you think Rush is right most of the
>> time. But that can't possibly be true...can it?
>
>Don't read the WSJ, don't listen to Rush--but I DO find Fox News to be more
>balanced on the whole that MSNBC or CNN. Rarely spend a lot of time with
>any of 'em, though.
Fox news, of course. Shoulda known. And you think it's balanced.
Please, please, give us a few examples of how Fox is "more balanced".
Avedon Carol
(cliff) wrote:
>In article <95el0a$8ee$2...@news.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
><erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>> If that doesn't work, start reciting all the names of people pardoned
>> by Reagan and Old Bush.
>
>And how many of 'em got to buy pardons for campaign donations outright like
>Rich did?
How many of them needed pardons so they couldn't testify that the
president was "in the loop" on treason?
Avedon Carol
<dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
>Whenever there is an election at any level I'm planing to be on the
>phone banks for the Democrats. I'll write to my senator every month to
>make sure they know I haven't stopped being angry.
Don't. They'll think you're a whacko.
An occasional letter is one thing; a constant stream of them make you
look like a nutter.
You want to influence your local Dems? Volunteer. Work for them.
Hang around long enough that they start to let you do more than stuff
envelopes.
>If enough people are
>doing this then the politicians might think twice before quietly walking
>away from the ongoing investigations into the Florida election. We must
>make sure that our representatives know that we will not vote for them
>next time if they do not support continuing investigations. As someone
>recently said to me, remember it took two years for Nixon to fall as a
>result of Watergate. The investigations may not look like much at the
>moment, but if we all write letters and make phone calls they might
>survive long enough to turn into something.
If enough different people write _one_ letter for lots of _different_
reasons, at different times, and also happen to mention that they
believe the election was stolen and they won't put up with more of the
same, it would make quite a bit of difference. If enough different
people show their legislators that they are willing to actually put a
stamp on an envelope in order to make their voices heard, it will make
a difference.
If a bunch of people think they can just deluge their legislators with
e-mail, nothing is gonna happen. And if it's just a few people
writing loads of letters all the time 'til they recognize your address
and your handwriting, they will assume that only fruitcakes give a
shit.
Avedon Carol
<kmar...@ungames.com> wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>I could write to *my* senator, but, well, he's Jesse Helms.
>
>Last time I checked, North Carolina had two senators. John Edwards
>(D-NC) voted against Ashcroft, and made a very nice speech in the
>process of doing so, a speech which said "In conclusion, at a time
>when our Nation desperately needs unifying leaders, Senator Ashcroft
>is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time."
Oh, Lyndon would have been proud!
Lenny Bailes
>
> cliff wrote:
>
> > In article <3A7A64...@slip.net>, len...@slip.net wrote:
> >
> >> You seem to be forgetting that Gore asked Bush to agree to a complete recount
> >> of the Florida votes very early on and Bush refused.
> >
> >
> > And I don't blame him! If I'd won by a vote counted by the standards in
> > place at the time of the election, and then I had still won even after a
> > biased recount of highly pro-Democratic precincts, why in the world would I
> > ask for a recount? The winner doesn't NEED a recount.
> >
> >
> There's no winner until after the election is certified and at that
> point the count hadn't been certified. Isn't it great the way
> Republicans, yes I think you're a republican regardless of who you voted
> for, play fast and loose with reality. I do blame him for it and I
> think he made a big tactical error by not accepting Gore's offer of a
> recount. Had Bush accepted it, he and Gore could have hammered out
> standards that would have worked for both or them. Then if he'd won the
> specter of illegitimacy would have been lifted. Millions of people who
> are angry and planning to do something about it wouldn't be. Bush has
> just created a very energized and angry opposition group that didn't
> have to exist.
AOL
Except that if Bush had agreed, Gore would now be the legitimately-
certified President of the United States, as I have a feeling that
Cliff may realize.
And, instead of 50% of the American public muttering under their
breaths about robbery, the "opposition group" would now consist of
a thuggish collection of Republican party hacks.
-- who would have boycotted Gore's inauguration and currently be filing
every conceivable obstructionist lawsuit known to mankind -- instead
of just being angry and holding up signs on Pennsylvania
Avenue.
And I wonder if Cliff would posting on r.a.s.f.f. in that timeline,
in pious defense of the high moral justification for Republican
obstructionism.
Rather than mouthing the word "bi-partisan."
--
Lenny Bailes | len...@slip.net | http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~lennyb
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> Ed Dravecky III <e...@panix.com> wrote:
> >A bunch on 'em. Oh, I'm sorry, George Steinbrenner was pardoned
> >for the good of the Republic? My mistake. <sheesh>
>
> Which is doubly wondrous, since Steinbrenner's criminal conviction was
> due to illegal campaign contributions.
>
> Incidentally, I don't know about anyone else here, but it strikes me
> as wondrously odd that we are expected to believe that Marc Rich was
> funnelling money to Clinton through his *ex* wife. Most people I know
> who have ex-wives wouldn't trust the ex-wife with a quarter for a
> shopping cart, let along hundreds of thousands of dollars in slush
> funding.
>
I have no problem with that at all. Does anyone know why they
divorced? It may have been merely convenient, or they may still be
friends. And the amount of money in question isn't that much, by his
standards.
73, doug
Kevin J. Maroney
>Meanwhile, Republican observers WERE being blocked from the viewing.
Do you have a citation for that? It flatly contradicts what I read.
>Major Ken Howes was quoted by CBS news as saying that checkpoints on that
>stretch of road had been used in the past, but not at that specific
>intersection, which was 1.4 miles away from the nearest polling station.
You've looked at the maps of the area, right, and David Greenbaum's
analysis here about how "that specific intersection", a whole 1.4
miles from the polling place, could not have been better selected to
discourage black voters from reaching the polling site?
>> The actions were felonious on their face. That doesn't mean that a
>> charge was ever going to be brought. There's a long history of that
>> throughout America; it doesn't change the fact that there were massive
>> irregularities.
>
>A judge ruled that there was no felony committed, and the Supreme Court
>allowed that decision to stand that by refusing to hear the case. That
>means no felony took place. Even though "you're going to make flat
>pronouncements which are contrary to recorded fact," as you phrased it.
A judge ruled that no felony could be prosecuted. That's not the same
claim.
Janice Gelb
cliffNO...@earthlink.net (cliff) wrote:
>
> Yep. That sums it up. If you're too stupid to figure out HOW to vote
> or to ask for help if you can't figure it out, then your vote shouldn't
> count.
>
For much of the day, poll workers were specifically under
orders *not* to provide help to people. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/11/politics/11PALM.html
*********************************************************************
Janice Gelb | Just speaking for me, not Sun.
janic...@eng.sun.com | http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/
"The legal system prevents us from killing each other. The
etiquette system prevents us from driving each other crazy."
-- Miss Manners
David G. Bell
Oh, I see how that impression can arise. We sort of shuffle around,
looking at the evidence, with all those arrows on the front, and when
it's all pointing in the same direction, and you get more than two or
three people humming a bar from _Alce's Restaurant_...
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay the true value of
goods and services delivered. We create a lack of production. Less good
music is recorded if we remove the incentive to create it. -- Courtney Love
Avram Grumer
> In article <avram-02020...@manhattan.crossover.com>,
> av...@grumer.org (Avram Grumer) wrote:
>
> > I propose that for the next election, you should have to place your vote
> > on a punch-card attatched in a misaligned frame over full chad bins that
> > keep you from punching cleanly through the card. At a polling place
> > that's so busy that all of the attendants are short-tempered and
> > ovreworked. And make you stand on long lines. Oh, and first we put
> > contact lenses on you that give you blurry vision. And a bladder
> > condition.
>
> And I'd still vote correctly.
Really? You've done this, personally, and therefore know for certain how
you'd do under those conidtions? Or you're just so full of yourself that
you don't think you could ever make a mistake?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"All this talk of legitimacy is way overblown."
-- James Baker III
Seen on ABC's "This Week", 10 December 2000
Soren deSelby
To their credit, the Browne supporters I've seen on the Well recognize that
the election was stolen.
________
no unity with traitors
no compromise with thieves
Avram Grumer
> In article <95esah$irh$1...@ebaynews1.EBay.Sun.COM>,
> jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com wrote:
>
> > In response to a later point of yours, not all of the kicked-out
> > ballots had to do with chads. In Lake County alone, a Republican
> > stronghold that uses optical-scan ballots, Gore picked up 130
> > votes in a recount of "overvote" ballots where people had marked
> > the candidate of their choice and also provided the name in the
> > write-in section just to make sure they voted for the candidate
> > they wanted. There was absolutely no question in anyone's mind
> > what the intent of the voter was when viewing these ballots.
>
> Which supports my contention that if Al Gore had played by the rules from
> the beginning and let the results be certified on November 14th, then
> challenge for a statewide recount through the courts, he might have had
> time to have the results counted. (I would have have also demanded a
> recount of the manufactured Palm Beach County votes, but that's another
> issue.)
Except that everyone who knows anything about recounts knows that it's
harder to challenge an election count after it's been certified.
> > [P.S. Hi, Cliff! When I suggested that you start reading this
> > group, I didn't realize you'd start out with such a bang :-> ]
>
> Thanks!
>
> I have always had a problem with "party line" thinking...
Then why has everything you've said in this newsgroup been a straight
recitation of Republican party propaganda?
Mary Kay Kare
>
each other agree about some things is not particularly surprising. Nor
does it constitute a pary line. I don't care how long you've been in
fandom, you're new to rasff. And we've already had these arguments and we
don't need them again. You're damaging one of my favorite places to
socialize and I resent the hell out of it. The whole tone of everything
you've said is that we're a bunch of mindless idiots lockstepping along
and you, in your superior wisdom, shall enlighten us. And I, for one,
wish you'd go away. And as far as I'm concerned, you have.
Plonk.
MKK
--
"Books you've bought and shelved but not yet read emit a gentle, beneficial
radiation, and when you finally do read them they're almost old friends."
--Teresa Nielsen Hayden on RASFF
Ed Dravecky III
> Ed Dravecky III <e...@panix.com> wrote:
> > We commend him for not being a hit-and-run troll, his incisive
> > intellect, and his skill at debate, yes. Any other questions?
>
> Ooh, you can call names!...
This is _your_ idea of incisive intellect and skill at debate?
Soren deSelby
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I have always had a problem with "party line" thinking...
Say, I'll bet you're a "free thinking" "maverick" who "walks to a different
drummer," "takes the road less traveled," and "isn't afraid to say the
emperor's naked," even when it isn't "politically correct."
Kevin J. Maroney
>claim.
I recommend to everyone who is still interested in the Martin County
absentee ballots case the actual text of the relevant Florida Supreme
Court decision, which is a very far cry from the exoneration that
Cliff has presented.
Basically, there were two cases--one in Martin County, one in Seminole
County. Both were attempts by Democrats (unaffiliated with the Gore
campaign, incidentally) to get the absentee ballots in those counties
invalidated. The Florida Supreme Court upheld decisions by two lower
court judges that the clear wrongdoings of the County Elections
Supervisors should not invalidate the votes, because the circumstances
of the case ruled out the commission of actual fraud. I believe this
was the correct decision, and is consistent with the position that the
Gore campaign held throughout--voters who cast clear and readable
votes should have them counted.
However, the Seminole case says this about the election supervisors
<http://www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/ops/sc00-2447.pdf>:
We find the Supervisor’s conduct in this case troubling and we
stress that our opinion in this case is not to be read as condoning
anything less than strict adherence by election officials to the
statutorily mandated election procedures. Such adherence is vital
to safeguarding our representative form of government, which
directly depends upon election officials' faithful performance of
their duties. . . . [T]his case [does not] concern[] potential
sanctions for election officials who fail to faithfully perform
their duties. It is for the legislature to specify what sanction
should be available for enforcement against election officials who
fail to faithfully perform their duties.
The Martin County decision basically says, "What we said in the
Seminole County case holds here, too."
No criminal charges were ever brought against either Peggy Robbins (of
Martin County) or Sandra Goard (of Seminole County), so there has not
been a ruling by any court about the criminal activities, contrary to
the previous statements made by Cliff.
Rich McAllister K6RFM
> In article <3A7AED6C...@iname.com>, Warren Lapine & Angela kessler
> <dnapubl...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> > Then you want to change the rules after the fact.
>
> Nope. I see the rules in effect as requiring an indication of the clear
> intent of the voter, which could only come about if the voter voted
> properly.
What if somebody punched one hole, decided it was wrong, punched the
Gore hole, figured that that was ambiguous, punched the "write in
hole" and wrote "DESPITE ANY OTHER PUNCHES I WANT TO VOTE FOR GORE" in
the slot. (I understand there are ballots which look pretty much like
this.) Now, that's clearly not voting properly, but how can you say
it isn't an indication of the clear intent of the voter?
Rich
James Mcadams
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>I have this feeling that all the Browne supporters were definitely
>reading the same news sources - they all seem to believe this stuff
>even more than the Bush voters do.
I think it's more that Libertarians/libertarians/Browne
supporters believed all along that the election was going to be
won by a crook, and are less upset about the specifics of which
crook and what crimes. (And more prone to see crimes and
"exonerations" on both sides).
JIMMC.
(Who didn't have a single presidential candidate to really
support, so rooted for Hegelin for the Looney factor.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McAdams | Do,
jmca...@interaccess.com | or Do Not.
630-859-6902 | There is no "Try". - Yoda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Maroney
>What if somebody punched one hole, decided it was wrong, punched the
>Gore hole, figured that that was ambiguous, punched the "write in
>hole" and wrote "DESPITE ANY OTHER PUNCHES I WANT TO VOTE FOR GORE" in
>the slot. (I understand there are ballots which look pretty much like
>this.) Now, that's clearly not voting properly, but how can you say
>it isn't an indication of the clear intent of the voter?
No reasonable person would call it “an error in the
vote tabulation,” FLA. STAT. §102.166(5), or a “rejection of
legal votes,” FLA. STAT. §102.168(3)(c),4 when electronic or
electromechanical equipment performs precisely in the
manner designed, and fails to count those ballots that are
not marked in the manner that these voting instructions
explicitly and prominently specify.
That's what Chief Justice Rhenquist said in his decision. Of course,
this directly contradicts the finding of the Florida Supreme Court,
but what does the Florida Supreme Court know about Florida electoral
law?
Alison Scott
>You want to influence your local Dems? Volunteer. Work for them.
>Hang around long enough that they start to let you do more than stuff
>envelopes.
Just in case anyone round here hasn't done it at some point, I should
add that there's nothin' wrong with stuffing envelopes. It can be
exceptionally good fun, too, particularly if accompanied by pizza and
beer. What's more, I have it on good authority that even
not-quite-four-year-olds can make a substantial contribution in the
form of putting the mailing labels on the envelopes.
--
Alison Scott ali...@kittywompus.com & www.kittywompus.com
Victor Gonzalez for TAFF; remember to cast your TAFF vote
Ballot at http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Taff/taff2001.html
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <cliffNOSPAMbig-ya0240...@news.flashcom.net>,
> cliffNO...@earthlink.net (cliff) wrote:
>
> > In article <avram-02020...@manhattan.crossover.com>,
> > av...@grumer.org (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> >
> > > I propose that for the next election, you should have to place your vote
> > > on a punch-card attatched in a misaligned frame over full chad bins that
> > > keep you from punching cleanly through the card. At a polling place
> > > that's so busy that all of the attendants are short-tempered and
> > > ovreworked. And make you stand on long lines. Oh, and first we put
> > > contact lenses on you that give you blurry vision. And a bladder
> > > condition.
> >
> > And I'd still vote correctly.
>
> Really? You've done this, personally, and therefore know for certain how
> you'd do under those conidtions? Or you're just so full of yourself that
> you don't think you could ever make a mistake?
I'm quite confident I could vote correctly under those conditions
myself. Now, if the ballot was pre-punched for Bush, it would be
harder.
Mind you, I'm not *nearly* so sure that I could vote correctly under
*different*, but equally bad, conditions; the discussion here, plus
previous familiarity with pre-perforated punch cards (though not for
voting) make sme pretty confident I could deal with *that particular*
snake pit.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd...@dd-b.net
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Avram Grumer
> In article <3A7A64...@slip.net>, len...@slip.net wrote:
>
> > You seem to be forgetting that Gore asked Bush to agree to a complete
> > recount of the Florida votes very early on and Bush refused.
>
> And I don't blame him! If I'd won by a vote counted by the standards in
> place at the time of the election...
Then you wouldn't be George W. Bush.
Avram Grumer
> In article <goql7t0a71d5egr80...@4ax.com>,
> kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
>
> > The actions were felonious on their face. That doesn't mean that a
> > charge was ever going to be brought. There's a long history of that
> > throughout America; it doesn't change the fact that there were massive
> > irregularities.
>
> A judge ruled that there was no felony committed, and the Supreme Court
> allowed that decision to stand that by refusing to hear the case. That
> means no felony took place. Even though "you're going to make flat
> pronouncements which are contrary to recorded fact," as you phrased it.
That judge ruled no such thing. Have you read the text of the decision?
Kevin has.