This also explains why the exit polling, which is usually very accurate, was "off" by a significant amount.==============================
What Brooks Jackson wrote at FactCheck was his opinion. Not fact.
How you and the Bush-supporters try to defend his assuming the office of the presidency is very much like how Bush investigated 9/11: By setting up a commission with members who had to agree before being allowed onto the commission that there would only be one report that would include only that which they all could agree on and no dissenting report.
If you want to know what happened on 9/11, you don't assemble political partisans and limit the scope and area of their inquiry. Yet that's exactly what happened. And that's also what your assessment of the 2000 election is. If you only count the ballots that were counted, you'll always get the result that Bush won, end of story. But that wasn't the end of the story. There were hundreds of thousands of perfectly legible, legal ballots that weren't counted and by which Gore won.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Yes, I consider him to be a conservative. I think he would consider himself conservative. There are issues where conservatives and liberals find common ground, and it's those issues where Turley's positions are considered 'libertarian'. I like Turley, always have, don't necessarily agree with him on all issues, but I don't necessarily agree with my own kind (liberals) on all issues either.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
BOTH partys were declaring that something HAD to be done about Saddam and his wmds
============================
Both parties were NOT declaring that the US attack Iraq.
It took George W. Bush lying to Congress, saying that Saddam Hussein had yellowcake, to get that AUMF vote. And even that was done with a promise by Bush that he wouldn't do anything without first getting a broad coalition and UN support and consult again with Congress.
Whatever Saddam did to his own people, he did it with US knowledge, support and materials. He was being kept in check by sanctions, no fly zones and UN inspections. Even UN inspectors said that he did NOT have WMD, nor did they support an invasion. It was Bush who pulled UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq on the eve of starting the war.
Let's also remember that Bush's ultimatum about regime change in Iraq (who the heck was Bush to be issuing ultimatums about a sovereign country?) and giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country actually got the result Bush was claiming to want. Saddam agreed to exile. But that wasn't what Bush (and the Arab League) wanted (oil and war profiteering), and so he ignored it, and pretended it hadn't happened and went ahead with the war. All of this was unbeknownst to and out of the oversight of Congress (it's important to also remember John Bolton ordering NSA intercepts on members of our government at that time).
We don't have to guess about what Gore would have done - He said he wouldn't support it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Here's an "if" game for you Bro.....if Gore had won, we probably wouldn't have gotten Obama.....ever.=========================
I like that scenario better.
I see you've gotten yourself all tangled up in the "if, if, if" game. Let it go, it's 2013 Bro.
That's not what the court case was about, was it?
You're welcome - I can post more links and will when I have to time to sort through them all. There used to be many more, but over time the media that published them have taken them down.
There aren't any links from "the other side" (supporting Bush's claim that he got more legal ballots) because it's not true, so all they can do is call us names and create havoc and confusion as a distraction.
In the years since we've seen more evidence of how they steal elections (suppression efforts, registered voter purges, dirty tricks like phone banks directing voters to the wrong polls, electronic voting machine manipulation, inadequate ballots and machines) so it's not as big a surprise to many as it was in 2000.
One piece of information that got absolutely no coverage was that the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida. That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-election days in Florida -- 'CharlesKane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the Martin County's Registrar's office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void). When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA. The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told." Verbatim quote. I heard it with my own ears. The judge didn't follow up. There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.
When you think of CIA's involvement in elections overseas, why wouldn't we also think they're monkeying in our elections?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Published on Thursday, November 15, 2001 in the Long Island, NY Newsday
Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead": A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news - the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information - gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it.
That's what happened to the findings of the media study of the uncounted votes from last year's Florida presidential vote. A consortium of news outlets - including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tribune Co. (Newsday's parent company), The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and CNN - spent nearly a year and $900,000 reexamining every disputed ballot.
The consortium determined that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the ongoing recount to go through, George W. Bush would still likely have ended up in the White House. That's because the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court - as well as the more limited recount asked for by Democratic candidate Al Gore - only involved so-called undervotes, ballots that when counted mechanically registered no choice for president.
Gore and the Florida Supreme Court ignored overvotes - votes where mechanical counting registered more than one vote - on the assumption that there would be no way to tell which of the multiple candidates the voter actually intended to pick.
But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter's intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate's name, and then writing in the same candidate's name.
Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn't matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes - whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/111207a.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2006/jul/14/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5111
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Your USA Today link doesn't exist, and if you read the entire opinion piece by John Broder and Ford Fessenden at your NYT link, you'll see that you're wrong. As I pointed out at the time, mainstream media gave everyone something by putting in their headlines that "Bush Won", but if you actually read the analysis you'd see that had all legally cast ballots been counted, Gore won. And like the Brooks' Brothers riots in the post-election days in Florida, the shouting matches prevented the fact that it was a stolen election sink in.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
NORC, out of the University of Chicago, conducted the study in 2001. They examined all of the undervote and overvote ballots in all 67 counties of Florida. They built a database containing each ballot and the counters' interpretation of the chads (punch cards) and marks (optical scan and absentee).
Once the database was built, they ran nine scenarios as to which counties were counted according to which standard. They multiplied these nine scenarios times two agreement criteria (majority vs. unanimous) for a total of eighteen possible results.
Of these eighteen possible ways the vote could have been recounted, Bush won seven and Gore won eleven.
Specifically, Bush won if the recount that Gore requested would have been finished (four counties). Gore won if you recounted the whole state.
The whole-state recount is the most important scenario because it's the one that gets to the heart of the question: Who won if every legitimate voter's vote was counted?
See the NORC recount project here.
Even Rachel Maddow referenced it a couple of days ago on her show:
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: In the 2000s, there have been two amazing stories about voting in the great state of Florida. One of those stories is very well known. The other one is barely known at all but has just become really, really important.
The first one was in the year 2000 when this happened. The nail-bitingly close race between Al Gore and George W. Bush resulted in the race being called and then uncalled. And then a cacophonous, disorganized, politicized, intimidated counting process was ultimately called off in what was considered to be one of the most anomalous and partisan U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the modern era. And so, George W. Bush became the president-elect.
And then a bunch of newspapers from Florida and nationally decided to commission a study—they hired a company to count all the votes that had been cast in that election in Florida. By then, it was more than a year after the fact, but the study showed that if you did count all the votes in Florida that year, Al Gore won. Incidentally, but by then it was 11 months into George Bush‘s presidency.
Eric Alterman summarized it well:
"[T]he inescapable fact is that Gore was the genuine choice of a plurality of Florida’s voters as well as America’s. As the Associated Press reported in its examination of the NORC report, “In the review of all the state’s disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide.”http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-04/bush-v-gore-decision-looks-even-more-disgraceful-10-years-later/
Gore beat Bush by almost every conceivable counting standard.
Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and he won under a loose-counting scenario. He won if you counted “hanging chads” and he won if you counted “dimpled chads.” He won if you counted a dimpled chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot—the so-called Palm Beach standard. He even won if you counted only a fully punched chad. He won if you counted partially filled oval on an optical scan and he won if you counted only a fully filled optical scan. He won if you fairly counted the absentee ballots. No matter what, if everyone who legally voted in Florida had had a chance to see their vote counted, then Al Gore not George W. Bush, was elected president."
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
