i'm not blowing him off..but i think the al gores of the party are why they lost last tuesday...not much to get excited about..same old message...blah blah blah. if the republicans and gwb drop the ball, anything's possible. but the primary arguments against gwb last time centered around inexperience...i don't think they'll be able to make that argument next time around.
Right again, Max. This time the Democrats will have a record to run against. If they'll actually run against it, I think they have a hell of a chance. If they run away from it like they did this year, it's Bush in a walk.
Also, I'm totally prepared to be wrong about Gore's totals in Houston, but the Harris County totals don't do the trick. Harris County's like New York State, where Dems are incredibly strong in the city and incredibly weak upstate. In Harris County, Houston is predominantly Democrat and the rest of the county is overwhelmingly Republican. I'm sure Jeff has good stats on this. It's why we've had registered Dems as Mayor as long as I can remember.
I'm so glad that Dubya is our president, anybody but Al the bore Gore who makes me want to Snore. He better not run anymore.
Not that I want Gore to front run the Demo ticket, but many of ya'll are totaly misunderestimating how closely divided the nation is. Anyway you slice it Gore and Bush were with 1% of each other. If Bush p*sses of unions, he loses West Virgina, and that is all it would have taken last election. Also, you can't gauge how a presidential election will turn based on a mid-term elections where turn out is low--especially among traditionally democratic groups. No matter how you slice it, the election in 2000 was so close that with a rain storm in Tampa Gore is sitting president right now--it was crap shoot. Personally, except for the damage to the court system, I hope Bush and the Republicans like Jorge continue to misoverstimate their "mandate" given by a few swings in mostly finicky independent voters. Let us see how the seniors vote in the next 2 years when they start losing their docs because medicare reembursement are too low and they perceive the party in power is aloof about it. The halo around GWB since 9/11 will start wearing thin when people start hurting and see a non-responsive governement--as another said the GHB post Desrt Storm situation in 90 is very comparable. Your right, now instead of inexperience, and speculation for how he will run things, they have a record. Truthfully I don't think the Republicans have to "drop the ball". A lot of the fate of GWB second term lies with the economy--and honestly most of that is beyond his admin's control. Of course if they overreach with proposals any more conservative than center-right that isn't going to help their cause either.
Oh, I just want to add how stupid it was for the Republicans to put Tom Delay as the Majority Whip. The Republicans are ahead right now, the last thing they should want to put is give a incredibly partisan seek and destroy hothead like that a sounding board so he can alienate 2/3rds of the public. I don't think Pelosi was a great choice for the Demos either. But they have a lot less to lose right now. In hindsight maybe it is a good thing for the 2004 election for the Demos. Delay and Pelosi can escalate the perceived negativity in Washington, and this could allow that non-Washington New Democrat to offer a new direction. With Delay and Pelosi making noise there also will be no doubt the parties have different philosophies--creating room for that moderate to re-emerge and grab the center needed to win the election.
Desert Scar: I agree on DeLay, though there's been noise lately about him toning down his act. And if he doesn't do it himself, the White House will make him. They're not gonna throw anything away for his benefit. Even so, he's a divisive figure and not a great choice. But he's a good soldier and it was his turn. We'll see how long he can keep his temper in check. I totally disagree on Pelosi. Her ideology is liberal, but she's not a hothead. The Dems need someone in there who will fight when necessary, and they didn't have it in Gephardt or Frost or any of the other challengers. While Bush is popular due to international affairs right now, his domestic agenda is still far right. And now that they've got Congress, he's actually able to pass a lot of it. If Pelosi's smart, she's fight hard only against the hard right stuff (and there's plenty of it) which is unpopular with the public (privacy issues re: Homeland Security, drilling in Alaska, further tax cuts, privatizing social security, etc.) and come off as a moderate two years from now. I like our chances a lot better with her at the helm than any of the other choices.
I didn't mean to imply she was a hothead, only that her views, like Delay's represent a not so large section of the electorate. The more I think of it I agree with you she is a good choice. The main thing for the Democrats to do is show their are real philosophical, and practical, differences in the parties--she (and Delay) will help draw the distictions out. It is a different position being Minority Whip than Speaker of the House or the next Presidential candidate for the Demos--which I wouldn't think she would be a great choice for those roles. But maybe in fact she is a terrific choice for her current role.
Heck of a job in this thread Batman. What disappointed me the most about the Florida debacle is not that it generally broke along party lines--it was bound to--but that more Repubs didn't get pissed off about the situation. This was an affront to our ideals and democracy. If the situation had been reversed--say that 90,000 white guys from the panhandle had been removed form the rolls without due process and for no reason or that a county along the Georgia border had badly designed ballots or that a bunch of NRA members ended up voting for Ralph Nader-- what would Republicans have done? Better yet, what if the Supreme Court had come down with a decision that basically ignored all these? This was something to upset all Americans, not just Democrats. Also--Sorry Ref, but I have read the decision and it reeks of pussilanimity. Every major decison by the Supremes in the 20th Century expanded the right to vote, but in this case principles established in prior opinions (By this court and previous ones) meant nothing. It may have a twisted internal logic, but it is not a document that can exist by itself but is rather a document that is part of the times and politics of our era. Considering that, it is one of the most illogical and blatently political decision ever made by the Supremes and reads to me as justifying the decision rather than supporting it.
Good God we're in a leadership drought....I sooo wish Powell would run, damnit! Not for another term, I'm afraid.
Not surprising to me (from Tennessee) that Gore lost his "home" state. If he had to drive himself "home", would he even know his way around or how to get there? Tennessee is also a long, narrow state with several distinct regions. The Tennessee I know is mostly conservative. Is anyone else still worried about Gore's ability (or inability) to tell the truth? Though he's very good at saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. (Maybe I should be saying: is he any worse than any other politician? )
The Supremes gave a clear instruction to any who would wish to organize a recount effort. Have clear standards that remain consistent from county to county and team to team. I'm grappling with how this could offend your notion of fairness.
The Supremes gave a clear instruction to any who would wish to organize a recount effort. Have clear standards that remain consistent from county to county and team to team. I find it odd that using different methods in each county on the original count is OK, but doing it on a more intense / careful re-count is wrong.
The difference is the introduction of human judgment in a recount. In the original count it is either computerized voting or it is a punchcard read by machines. When you have human beings looking at a ballot to determine the intent of the voter by examining dimpled chads, then you need to have consistent criteria.
The difference is the introduction of human judgment in a recount. In the original count it is either computerized voting or it is a punchcard read by machines. When you have human beings looking at a ballot to determine the intent of the voter by examining dimpled chads, then you need to have consistent criteria. I'd agree that you certainly need consistency within each county. I just don't see why you'd need consistency between counties in a recount when there wasn't any there in the first place. The whole system is messed up anyway - with all the technology we have, there must be a better way to count votes. BTW, I haven't read the court decision, nor do I know the details of all the voting problems in Florida. I'm just talking in a more theoretical perspective.
The following are quotes from the text of the opinion. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-949 This is just part of the opinion. The issue was ensuring equal treatment. Even in the original count, the ballots are all treated and counted in the same manner.
I'm not a lawyer, nore have I pored over the court's decision. But it seems a mistake to me to consider it a no-brainer, obviously consistent with constitutional law, etc, considering that it split on party lines and was a 5-4 vote, with dissenting justices actually making speeches at universities after the fact relating their disappointment and surprise at the ultimate verdict. Not a single thing about this election could have been closer. One justice on the other side and the whole thing's different. And it would then be Bush, were he considering a comeback, that everyone would be calling a fool, a dick and unelectable. Let's have some perspective here. Gore makes just one right decision (of his many wrong ones) and this is all reversed. There are enough revisionist historians out there. I don't think we need more on the board. Meanwhile Gore is busily reinventing himself (again) as the true believer, funny, decent guy that people who actually know him wished he'd display on the campaign trail. (See Time magazine. It will excite Dems and give pause to Republicans.) If true, and if he gets the nomination, it will be a damn good race.
Ref, your powers of citation are great, but again, I must argue that the decision cannot exist alone. Through the original comments in the case and the stay, the Supremes (Scalia) created a Catch-22 for Florida, essentially telling them not to alter the legislative language (voter intent) and then giving the election to Bush on the grounds that the recount ordered by the FL Supreme Court cannot guarantee a fair recount. Is there any doubt that if the FL SC had changed the standard that the US SC would have slapped them down? The US SC made no provisions for a fair recount and arranged it so that the FL SC could not carry one out either. In other words, if the FL SC had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules, and since it didn't, it got overturned for not changing the rules. The language itself says the FL SC should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote." This, even though the US SC knew the only way to change the standards was for the FL legislature to pass a new law and have the Gov sign. Another problem I have is the equal protection argument. It seems to have only applied to Republican interests. The US SC never considered the equal protection of voters subject to the butterfly ballot nor the 2% of Democrat-leaning voters (largely African-American) disenfranchised. They even admitted that some votes would not be counted yet did nothing for the equal protection of those citizens whose votes would go uncounted. They only focused on the somewhat less than .005% of the ballots (100 to 300 votes) that may have been determined under slightly different standards, because judges and county officials would look at the ballots under strict public scrutiny and record voters' votes. There may have been a slightly different opinion about a few hundred votes, but Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to fax him their standards so he could be sure they were uniform when the US Supreme Court stopped him from counting the uncounted votes. Republican activists did their best to send junk faxes to Lewis in order to prevent counties from submitting the standards on time. They succeeded. To issue a stay is equal protection? The whole argument about procedural dates not leaving time for a good recount also seems bogus to me. The US SC chose to stop recounts on the basis of in-place procedures and certain fixed dates at the expense of establishing a fair way for the popular will to be determined. This is what I mean by pussilanimity. To hang a pre-determined decision on inconsequential rules and write it in a way that seems too obtuse for most people is ridiculous. They should have just come out and said "By a 5-4 vote we are stopping the recount and Bush is President." By cloaking a nakedly political decison in the trappings of "the rule of law" the US SC did more ultimate damage than just making their preference known. The US SC knowingly misrepresented December 12 as Florida's chosen deadline for completing the vote count. They held that Florida law allowed no time to count the remaining 175,000 votes: "[December 12] is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed." Ten days later, Florida Supreme Court justice Leander J. Shaw issued a rejoinder, one that has been overlooked to this day: "December 12 was not a 'drop-dead' date under Florida law. In fact, I question whether any date prior to January 6 is a drop-dead date under the Florida election scheme. December 12 was simply a permissive 'safe-harbor' date to which the states could aspire. It certainly was not a mandatory contest deadline under the plain language of the Florida Election Code (i.e., it is not mentioned there) or this Court's prior rulings. Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (December 22, 2000) (Shaw, J. concurring; emphasis in original)." Consistent with identical laws in all fifty states, Florida requires that its slate of Electoral College delegates be awarded to the presidential candidate getting the most popular votes statewide. When the winner of that popular count is clear, each state's electors have the option under federal law to meet by December 12 in order to escape the technical threat of challenge by members of Congress. Due to the practical unlikelihood of such a challenge ever being raised, electors ordinarily meet in state capitals on December 18 to cast their votes. These results are forwarded to Washington, D.C. by December 27 and are tallied and verified in Congress on January 6. (In the 2000 election, several states had not reported by December 18, yet no harm came to their vote counts.) However, when the victor of a state's presidential election is not clear and a manual recount is required to determine the popular vote result, precedent, common sense, and basic respect for the democratic process dictate that the state's deadline for designating its slate of electors be January 6, the day Congress officially tabulates the electoral vote. That date provides the maximum, reasonable time for a state to ensure that its electoral votes reflect the popular vote winner. The Florida legislature gave no indication that it wanted state officials to adhere to an earlier deadline at the expense of securing an accurate popular vote count. In the 1960 presidential race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, Hawaii awarded its electors on January 4, 1961 based on a just-completed recount. These electors were readily accepted two days later in the tabulation of electoral votes. In 1960, the people of Hawaii had their say, but in 2000, the US SC's conservative majority did not let the people of Florida have theirs. These same justices who on so many prior occasions had championed the rights of states had now willfully nullified Florida law. So, the US SC asserted that Florida had imposed a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline in lieu of an accurate vote tabulation. That the US SC said Florida officials supported insulating an inaccurate count from Congressional challenge in order to justify their own political preferences is, in my opinion, one of the more absurd and damaging findings in US SC history. The irreparable harm argument on the stay was a complete sham. The only irreparable harm was to Gore, who would have been President had not the stay been issued and the recount stopped. Does anyone really think that if Bush had been seeking the recount that the US SC decision would have been the same? Would Scalia have issued the stay? I don't think so and no matter how logically consistent one thinks the internal reasoning is in Bush v. Gore, the fact that it would not have been the same had the situation been reversed gives the lie to the whole process. Just because a decision is final doesn't make it right.
The implication being that the ruling would have been different had Florida set up hard standards for the recount. In the case at bar there was nothing stopping a recount team from saying that all ballots which were undecipherable would be counted for Gore. Certainly you don't advocate leaving those persons doing the recount to their own (perhaps dubious) devices. I doubt it. The SC said clearly that had Florida set up a recount scheme to ensure uniformity in the recount process that the result would have been different. I see no reason to assault their integrity at this point. Had the SC been THAT partisan then they certainly would have heard (and reversed) the NJ case last month. The facts and applicable law were screaming for a reversal. The SC didn't even take the case. This is simply false. The Florida statutes were silent as to standards to be used in a recount. The Florida court would have been within their bounds to devise one. If it passed a fairness analysis (a low standard) it would have been fine Constitutionally. Once again...false. Given that the statutes were silent, the Court would have been within their bounds to devise a uniform standard. They chose not to do so...and the SC was left no choice but to strike it down. Please explain how developing standards to ensure that all ballots are treated in the same manner only applying to one sides' interests. Under ANY standards, there would be some votes which would be undecipherable to the point that they would not be counted. The Supreme Court was charged with ensuring that standards were in place to minimize this effect. There is nothing in the record to support a single word of this. Perhaps election laws and regulations are inconsequential to you...but I beg to differ kind sir. BTW...if you thought this opinion was obtuse, then you certainly haven't read much SC caselaw. Most of the time their writing (throughout history, not just the current court) requires a flowchart just to get the basic idea. That doesn't even touch upon the deeply philosophical ramblings which make as much sense as a discussion on advanced metaphysics. That is a charged statement. Had there been any validity to this charge then there would have been nationwide outcry for the justices to be ousted due to a violation of the rules of Judicial Conduct. I think that the Dems higher up on the food chain know better than 2 guys on a basketball BBS...and they chose to do nothing. The Miami Herald disagrees as they published that had the recount been completed that Bush still would have won. A narrow margin, but a victory nonetheless. This is bald speculation, and largely a waste of time. You have no clue what would have happened had the roles been reversed. Neither do I. But because your guy lost you feel the need to dream up a vast conspiracy. That's fine. If it makes you feel better.
