Bill O'Reilly is the host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor", the most popular news program on cable television, which airs each week night at 7 and 10. Here is his "Talking Points Memo" from a couple of days ago: "If you are keeping score, chalk up two big points for the Factor. From the beginning we predicted that Governor Bush would carry Florida and despite the opinions of most constitutional attorneys we knew the Supreme Court would hear Governor Bush's case. That's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. Forgive me but I am going to ignore the minutiae and go right to the heart of the matter. It was inherently unfair for this presidential election to hinge on a recount in three democratic counties. I know the Democrats outwitted the Republicans and got those counties into play. Tactically the Democrats were smarter and faster than the GOP which banked on Florida Secretary of State Harris to carry them home. The Republicans could have asked for a recount in their strongholds but felt they didn't need to do it. They were wrong as the election was almost snatched from them. Take a look at this tape from Broward County — was your vote examined like this one? No, it was not. If your vote was unclear, it was disregarded by a machine. That is the standard by which this country operates its elections. But the democrats shrewdly played the media and were able to ram through a recount in three counties most friendly to them. Was that fair? Was it? Of course not. And that's why the Supreme Court has taken the case. Americans who view this election through non-partisan eyes know that you can pick up votes anywhere by handcount. But the votes are designed to be counted by machines that have no bias. It was factored in that any and all discounted ballots would balance out across the country...both candidates would lose a roughly equal number of votes. Talking points continues to be amazed that more Americans don't see the big picture here. This whole thing in Florida was about hustle and calculation on the part of Al Gore's team. They brilliantly executed a plan that almost gave the vice-president the win. They justify their action based upon the fact that Mr. Gore won the popular vote and he should be President in their estimation. But the cold reality — the kind of reality the Supreme Court has to deal with is that selective recounts for no compelling reason are unfair to all Americans and Mr. Bush is right to protest them. The Court knows that once our election system is deemed to be unfair the Republic will lose credibility with its own citizens and around the world. This of course cannot happen and will not happen. Fairness is the most important thing we have in this country. Once that goes...we are in big, big trouble. And that's the memo." ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited November 28, 2000).]
Freak, I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here, despite not having a side. Why is it unfair if, as even O'Reilly stated, the option (of hand counting) was available for republicans as well? If they were just "outsmarted" as he said, how is that unfair? Additionally, democrats would argue that those counties had major problems, thus the reasoning for the specified hand-count. Whether this is valid, it gives them a better excuse than just, "we do not want to lose." Of course it is stupid for the national election to come down to a few counties in Florida. Fairness is the most important thing we have in this country. Once that goes...we are in big, big trouble. This is probably the most naive and silly statement I have read about politics. Nothing in american governmental structure is meant to be truly "fair." It is always who is the most sly, who has the right allies, the best backers (most money). Is this guy really that dumb? Anyway, Freak, Gore shoud, of course, concede because he has lost. But he will ride this out a while longer. Bush would do the same. Yawn. ------------------ EZLN [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited November 28, 2000).]
rimbaud -- The difference is we're not talking about what is 'fair' for Al Gore to do. Of course he has the right to ask for recounts, as does the other party. The point is, what is fair to the people? Is it fair to the people that candidates get to pick and choose what votes get to count more than others, thus rendering some votes more important? No. I don't care about what's fair in politics. I'm talking about what is fair to the people. ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson
What's fair to the people? Why is this any less fair than the whole electoral system? The electoral college is based on the fact that some votes count more than others. If you vote with the majority in your state, your vote counts. If not, oh well. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
Here's Bill's latest Talking Points Memo: "Al Gore's counterattack is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo. Looking shaky and tentative in a short press conference earlier today, the vice president once again justified his legal challenge to the presidential election by saying that all votes should count. Like the slogan 'it's just about sex', Mr. Gore and the Democrats hope the phrase 'all votes should count' will oversimplify what's going on and rally Americans to his cause. So far, it is not working as the latest polls show only 38 percent of Americans believe Mr. Gore should not concede. Let's look at the facts as they stand right now. According to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, between two and three million ballots were disqualified nationwide because of voter error. That's about normal in a Presidential election, and since the voting became automated in 1963, both parties have accepted it. But not Al Gore in Florida. The vice president's lawyers point to a decision in Illinois that they say allowed dimpled ballots to be counted. According to reporting by The Chicago Tribune, that is false -- the courts ruled against counting dimpled ballots in Illinois. So now Mr. Gore wants a full recount in Florida and of course the Bush campaign is going to reject that according to the laws of Florida. Bush is the winner. Why would he agree to a recount now? Every time Al Gore appears on television the stock market drops drastically. No matter what they tell you on the finance shows, America is this close to a recession and there will be one if the market does not rally in December and if Alan Greenspan does not cut interest rates in the next few weeks. A recession will severely hurt working Americans. Al Gore surely knows this. His desire for a perfect election is naive and selfish. No election is perfect. Even The Washington Post editorial board which vastly prefers Gore to Bush admits Mr. Gore's strategy is flawed. Says The Post: 'The Democrats tried to suppress some absentee ballots that they feared would go against them, and the recount they seek is selective; it would occur in highly Democratic counties only.' Upon reading that, Mr. Gore reiterated his request for a statewide recount but that will never happen nor should it. If you recount in Florida, then all the states would have to be recounted. Impossible and chaotic. Talking Points, as always, points to the big picture. The country is being damaged economically by Al Gore's refusal to concede. Mr. Gore may have some philosophical points, but the rest of us have to live in a real world — a tough world. And now Al Gore is making things even tougher. That's the memo." ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited November 29, 2000).]
