The Return of Gore-Bot!!! - Page 2

thegelding writes:

[quote]anyways, i still love how people call Gore a loser, and a sore loser too, when he managed to get over 50 million people to vote for him, he got over half a millon more votes than the ever so popular George W, and then, when the race is impossibly close in a state governed by his challenger's brother (and the liberal media calls the state for Gore, then reverses it after GW's brother makes many phone calls back to his home state), Gore actually has the gall to ask for a proper recount and tally of the voters....and when all is said and done, and even though many more americans vote for him than they do for GW, he stands up and says that we, as a country, need to stand behind the new president 100%....yeah, he's a sore loser...hell, can you image if any country we didn't like held elections like we do...do you think we would "honor" their govt and elected officals if they held office after getting fewer votes than there competition???

just my "liberal" ramblings....g <hr></blockquote>

WOW. You certainly have an interesting version of the facts here.

1) Do you really think that Jeb Bush somehow convinced the WHOLE MEDIA to "reverse Florida"? (which didn't happen by the way, they called it neutral for several hours before awarding it and then taking it back agian from Bush). Please. He was in touch with the local precincts to find out what the numbers looked like. This is why Bush wouldn't concede Florida: Because the numbers he was getting weren't lining up with him having lost the state.

2) It is now estimated by many pundits that the liberal media calling Florida early may have cost Bush two MILLION votes nationwide, because after many heard Gore won the the "trifecta" of states they thought it was all over and went home instead of voting. There are thousands of documented cases of this. It is also estimated by many that Bush may have been cheated out of 10,000 votes in Florida alone, because the panhandle is a heavily Republican area.

3) Gore. Wow. You are amazing. People like you actually believe that Gore was somehow cheated out of the election. The fact was it was Bush who was cheated. Gore also decided to fight on and ask for up to five recounts per county. The fact is that Gore never won ANY of the recounts. He lost on election night, he lost the auto recount, and he lost every subsequent recount. Lost Lost Lost. Recounting the ballots also was equivalent to "changing the rules after the game". I agree the system wasn't all that accurate but one can't just come up with a new system of counting votes AFTER the election. That is illegal. The Supreme Court was also correct when it said that to count some counties again but not others violates the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. It makes my vote worth more than yours if it is counted again or has a greater chance of being counted than your does. I'm sorry, Joe Losermen, but we DON'T "count all the votes in America".....at least we didn't in that election and every one before it. Maybe we will now, but we can't go back and just make up new rules after the election until we get result we want.

Gore's behavior was atrocious. He used every tactic in the book to try and defeat Bush, but still couldn't accomplish it despite being a sitting Vice President witth a superb economy behind him (at the time). The real question is: What was wrong with Gore that he didn't destroy George Bush in the election? It shouldn't even have been close. Gore personally ordered the smear campaign against Bush (speciffically the DUI) and used a scorched earth policy in the recount process.

The real travesty, that of Gore actually becoming President never occurred. It shows that our system works. If Gore had any honor, he would have conceded after the first recount. Even Nixon had enough honor and dignity to do that.

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>(1)Gore was due, under Florida law, a manual hand recount, which he wanted to happen. Instead, Florida kept doing machine recounts, not a manual hand recount. Finally, they started to recount the votes by hand, again, which he was due under the law.

(2)That manual recount was never finished, though, as the Supreme Court halted the counting of those votes. They had various machine recounts, but they never finished the total manual recounts. The court ruled that the machine recount was sufficient and the election was over.

(3)As for your assertion that 2,000,000 Bush voters didn't vote after Florida was called, that's ridiculous. You have no proof of this at all and if those people didn't vote, than I guess they are like the 20,000 voters in Florida who were instructed to push two holes to vote for Gore and their votes were thrown out, just plain stupid, right?

(4) Actually, I do find it very humorous that the Republicans still blame Clinton for everything that is wrong with the country. Bush has been in office for over a year now, and for the most part, it hasn't been the success that Republicans wanted. ANWR drilling just went down, the tax cut has been a failure, the war on terrorism is going nowhere fast, the campaign finance reform bill passed, and it looks like we're going to have a major problem in the Middle East with another war against Saddam Hussein (and this time, I doubt the countries over there will want us around.)</strong><hr></blockquote>


1. Not really. Though technically Florida law allowed them, Gore was allowed to have the votes counted in only the most hard core democratic counties....with the strategy being to pick up as many votes as possible. The was a direct violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause, according to a 7-2 Supreme court opinion. (Remember that the 5-4 was the vote to halt the recount, but 7 of 9 justices said there were problems with the recounts). And Gore DID NOT ask for a statewide hand recount. Had he done this in time, he may have even pulled off a victory....

2. No.....they ruled that there wasn't enough time to find another solution to the problem, thereby handing the election to the certified winner, GWB.

3. 20,000 people voted for the wrong person? Come on, Fran. I hope you realize that the Democrats hired a telemarketing firm to follow up voters on election night. Many were TOLD to contact their Senator if they thought they might have voted for wrong person due to the "deceptive" balllot (which was appoved by a democratic canvassing board by the way). Of course, any reasonable person, or at least the majority of them, would not contact their Senator, they would call the election board. I do think a few may have screwed it up, but 20,000? That's what is ridiculous here, Fran.
You have no basis for this statement whatsoever. As far as my 2,000,000 vote statement, I stand by it. There is documented proof of people leaving the polls once they heard Bush had all but lost the election....in droves, Fran! I know of one account that is confirmed in which a man who had actually done some campaign work for Bush in Florida on local level heard about the loss on his way home from work. You know what he did Fran? He WENT HOME. He figured it was over and WENT HOME. A man who actually campaigned for Bush never voted. Maybe that wasn't the best idea, but I never questioned the media's accuracy either until that night. I think 2,000,000 is VERY probable, knowing that 3/4 of the country's polls were still open when they called it. And yes, it is a an estimate....I admit that. But I think it is quite reasonable considering the millions of people that hadn't voted yet when they saw the election might as well have been over.

4. Well, I find it amazing that no matter how well Bush handles things, liberals still blame HIM for everything. And so we are clear, though I despised Clinton and blamed him for many things, I don't blame him for everything. What I do blame him for is directly lying to the nation, his general immoral conduct, the fact he made decisions by heavily relying on polls (which I strongly oppose in general), his massive tax and spend polices and his willingness to cut our military to the point he did. I think he was a dishonest and corrupt man, though I will admit he did accomplish some things, namely increasing school construction funding, headstart funding, etc.

And why is the campaign finance bill a failure of Bush? He didn't fully support it, but that doesn't mean it is a failure. It doesn't matter anyway because I am of the opinion that at least part of it will be stricken down.

As far as the war on terror, you are just plain wrong there. Nowhere fast? That is insane. Countries all over the world are apprehending terrorists left and right. We have toppled an oppressive regime and, this time, we are staying around to actually help rebuild the country. We also have increased domestic security and apprehended many terrorists ourselves. Yep...going nowhere.

Finally, let me respond to your Iraq comment. One thing I blame Clinton for is not dealing with Saddam. The very moment Saddam refused to let the inspectors in, the US should have notified the coalition that unless Saddam complied, we were going in again....this time to take him out as a war criminal. Fact: Iraq can and will develop weapons of mass destruction under this man who has murdered his own people and poses a direct security risk to the United States. You know, frankly I could give a shit less about the Arab countries in that part of the world who wouldn't want us there.....maybe they should think back to when we literally saved their asses from Saddam by putting the lives of 450,000 US troops at risk in '91.

[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]

[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>First of all, manual recounts started about a week after the election, when the Republicans tried to get them stopped, even though it was granted under state law (they were stopped later):
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/18/recount.wrap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/18/recount.wrap/index.html</a>

Plus to show you that the 20,000 votes thing was not just pulled out of nowhere, here is the original article about it (actually 19,000 votes):
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/palm.beach.votes/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/palm.beach.votes/index.html</a>

Now, I'd love to see some evidence of those who didn't vote because the election was 'over'. As there were many congressional races, etc. going on, if people didn't get out to vote, they were very foolish. I don't believe the 2,000,000 number at all, but if you can show me some proof, I'd be very interested.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem Fran, is that this is the typical percentage that gets thrown out in EVERY presendential election. There is no evidence that everybody that voted twice tried to vote for Gore/Lieberman. And as I said, this ballot was approved by a DEMOCRATIC canvassing board.

In any case, the recounts were highly subjective, with no clear standard, and conducted only in certain places. That is why they were stopped.