Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush

[Kepler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Keep talking like that and I'll propose.

LOL.

The alternative to "surviving" would of course be having pisspoor positives, no leverage in Congress, and essentially no influence on governance. I wasn't thinking an angry mob would try to lynch him -- that's strictly for when Dems are in the White House.

[mindseye]

Ned wrote:

This said, I am still amazed that many Democrats cling to the belief that Gore actually won the election but for a Republican Supreme Court. I suspect these same people are unaware that the news media conducted their own recount after the election using all possible standards to count chads. Regardless of the standard chosen, in a statewide recount, Bush won Florida.

This cannot go uncorrected. Ned, are you sure about the results of that study? I assume the study you are referring to is that of the National Opinion Research Center, a study sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, and CNN, among others.

wsws.org offers this concise summary:

The study found that hundreds, if not thousands, of legal votes for Gore had not been counted. These fell into two categories. They included undervotes that, upon examination, were found to be valid under Florida law, i.e., the ballots showed a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." The other category was so-called "overvotes" ¡ªballots that were wrongly rejected because a voter punched or marked a ballot for Gore and also wrote in the Democratic candidate's name, circled it, or made some other mark around or near the candidate's name or party. According to state law these votes were also legal and should have been counted.

The study acknowledged that if all of the undervotes and overvotes in Florida had been examined fairly and objectively and the legal ballots in these categories had been added to the final tally, Gore would have won the election.

The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study "provides strong evidence" that a "clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr. Gore." The New York Times states that the study found "Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."

Go check for yourself if you don't believe it. You can download the tables from the NORC site.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by mindseye

The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study "provides strong evidence" that a "clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr. Gore." The New York Times states that the study found "Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."[/q]

Go check for yourself if you don't believe it. You can download the tables from the NORC site.

Unfortunately for Gore the only people arguing that any recount ordered should be a statewide recount were Republicans, while the Florida State Supreme Court is comprised of Democrats. Gore would not have had enough votes to win if the limited recount (in 3 heavily Democrat counties only) had gone forward. It's ironic that both camps were pushing for a ruling that would have given the race to their opponent.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

SpenceH, if you are illegally denied the vote, for what do you sue? How do you quantify damages?

If the actions were illegal there should be a criminal indictment. In your mind, the fact that there's not means there is a huge conspiracy when the most logical answer is that nothing illegal happened.

It does not matter if there are ethical people within the Florida or Federal DoJ if their bosses refuse to sign off on an investigation. If Ashcroft says "No!" then no one who wants to keep their job is going to start a criminal prosecution.

And you feel that there is not a single person in the Florida or Federal Justice Depts with enough integrity to push the issue?

THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSON found the exact smae problems that the BBC reported. These findings formed the basis of the NAACP lawsuit, not the testimony of people who were denied the vote. And yes, they would have setled if the State of Florida agreed to what the NAACP wanted, which was for the state to stop using that illegal list. Why continue wasting resources the organization can use elsewhere to continue pressing a case the State had already conceded? Do you think a judge would look kindly on having its time wasted to preside over a case in which one of the litigants has conceded to the other side?

THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSON was a joke. As I implied, it was comparable to a meeting of space-abduction claimants. I'm surprised you dont watch more C-span.

Look, I've given you the evidence. It's up to you to actually refute it. Not by slandering people, but with actual facts.

Here is the actual BBC broadcast.

Not only didnt I slander anyone, I didnt commit libel either.

Here are the 'facts' provided amidst what can only be desribed as the worst piece of one sided 'journalism' I think I've ever seen originate from the BBC.

A private Florida company was hired after being the low bid on a public contract to provide a list of voters who were ineligible to vote in Florida by virtue of their being felons.

So where's the link to the Republican party?

Some names on that list were incorrect and they excluded some people from voting. I couldnt find any evidence of how many names were actually proven wrong (as opposed to liberal innuendo which you put forward as fact).

This is from the ACLU website

"According to news reports, the Commission found that blacks were more likely than whites to have their ballots rejected and acknowledged that "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency" plagued the election overall. However, the ACLU of Florida has criticized the report for not going far enough because it found no "conclusive evidence" that state officials intentionally disenfranchised thousands of blacks Hispanic and Haitian voters across the state. "

So even with their psychic powers, that enabled them to determine that whether rejected votes were cast by blacks rather than whites, the commission could find no evidence of wrong-doing.

So where is this illegal activity? Where are your facts?

[-Jrabbit]

This has degenerated into a pathetic recap of an election from 2 years ago. Bush was legally elected, with no more (or fewer) irregularities than any hotly contested election. LET IT GO, PPL!!

On topic:
Let's deal with the present -- a world on the brink of war, economic chaos, and ecological disaster, where our "leader" sees those things as opportunities to advance a business-driven political agenda and ensure continued time on the throne.

Leadership is about having vision and direction, about improvement, and, for a US President IMHO, is also be about making the country -- and the world -- a better place to live for all of us.

Does anyone seriously believe the George W. Bush can be so described?

I'm not saying he's evil. I'm not saying he's stupid.
I'm just saying that "leadership" is not one of his stronger qualities.

Did I underestimate him? No. I've been consistently unsurprised at his actions. I admit that I've been somewhat impressed by him improvement as a public speaker. But that's not leadership.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
This has degenerated into a pathetic recap of an election from 2 years ago. Bush was legally elected, with no more (or fewer) irregularities than any hotly contested election. LET IT GO, PPL!!

On topic:
Let's deal with the present -- a world on the brink of war, economic chaos, and ecological disaster, where our "leader" sees those things as opportunities to advance a business-driven political agenda and ensure continued time on the throne.

Leadership is about having vision and direction, about improvement, and, for a US President IMHO, is also be about making the country -- and the world -- a better place to live for all of us.

Does anyone seriously believe the George W. Bush can be so described?

I'm not saying he's evil. I'm not saying he's stupid.
I'm just saying that "leadership" is not one of his stronger qualities.

Did I underestimate him? No. I've been consistently unsurprised at his actions. I admit that I've been somewhat impressed by him improvement as a public speaker. But that's not leadership.

Back on topic. Great. Did you read the Novak piece, Woodwards book, or have you seen the interviews with Woodward? The topic I was trying to raise was that the view that Bush is not really much of a leader appears to be totally false in the light of his actions toward the leaders of both houses and within his own cabinet.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Leadership is about having vision and direction, about improvement, and, for a US President IMHO, is also be about making the country -- and the world -- a better place to live for all of us.

The first being vastly more important than the second.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Back on topic. Great. Did you read the Novak piece, Woodwards book, or have you seen the interviews with Woodward? The topic I was trying to raise was that the view that Bush is not really much of a leader appears to be totally false in the light of his actions toward the leaders of both houses and within his own cabinet.

Novak yes, Woodward no. I'm pretty skeptical tho. (I'm a PR guy IRL...)

Happy to get this back OT -- a fine thread, SpencerH.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye

The study found that hundreds, if not thousands, of legal votes for Gore had not been counted. These fell into two categories. They included undervotes that, upon examination, were found to be valid under Florida law, i.e., the ballots showed a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." The other category was so-called "overvotes" ¡ªballots that were wrongly rejected because a voter punched or marked a ballot for Gore and also wrote in the Democratic candidate's name, circled it, or made some other mark around or near the candidate's name or party. According to state law these votes were also legal and should have been counted.

The study acknowledged that if all of the undervotes and overvotes in Florida had been examined fairly and objectively and the legal ballots in these categories had been added to the final tally, Gore would have won the election.

The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study "provides strong evidence" that a "clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr. Gore." The New York Times states that the study found "Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."

Go check for yourself if you don't believe it. You can download the tables from the NORC site.

That link you provided does not work.

Sorry, I only vaguely remember the articles. However, to the extent I do recall, the overvotes could not be counted legally because they had too many votes for president. If one only looked at the ballots with one vote, Bush won.

As to "intended to vote," I think you must also take into account the large number of Republicans who went home and did not vote in the Panhandle after the media called the state for Gore.

Actually, the early call of Florida for Gore seemed to make Gore the winner of the election and may have had an influence across the entire West.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm just saying that "leadership" is not one of his stronger qualities.

Actually it is one of his strongest. People on the Hill and in his Cabinet attest to it. And Bob Woodward just wrote about it. You can't be that forceful among your own without being a good leader.

[Chris 62]

I guess it wasn't time after all.

[chequita guevara]

Hey, even a monkey can go where he wants when he's driving a steam roller.

[Chris 62]

Not to bitter, are you Che?

Cheer up, Gore is running in 2004.

That means another 6 years of Bush.

[chequita guevara]

I'm not pro-Gore.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not pro-Gore.

Even after his lurch to the left?