White House reps are upset since future Democratic presidential non-winner John Kerry stated in "Rolling Stone"--
''When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything?' Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.''
They feel that--particularly because of the language--John Kerry should apologize.
And I'm flashing back to the B5 episode where John Sheridan was told he had to apologize to an alien race and he rehearsed an entire very unapologetic apology. I swear, if Kerry issues an apology along those lines--something like, "All right, I apologize: I'm sorry that George Bush f---ed it up" or "I'll apologize for saying it as soon as George Bush apologizes for doing it"--I'll vote for him. Not that it'll do any good. The Democrats still won't win the presidency in 2004. But it'd be amusing to read that comeback and watch the fallout.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at December 8, 2003 11:23 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPerhaps you should offer your speech-writing services to one of the candidates. I certainly would like to hear that apology and it certainly would get Kerry MY vote.
--Todd
I think the language was an obvious attempt by Kerry to bust out of the stiff Gorelike image he's gotten himself saddled with.
As for apology, I'm with you. If Kerry says, "I'm sorry bush f--ked it up," he's got my vote.
You know, with nine Dems running for the presidency, you'd think one of them would have a snowball's chance in hell.
But I guess not.
Oh I wouldn't count the Dems out just yet. History has a way of kicking out presidents right after wars, no matter how high their popularity is at the start. Another lesson that Jr should have learned from Daddy.
The problem with the Democrats' chances is that
1. History has shown that the candidate who spends the most money tends to win elections.
2. George W. Bush's unprecedented $200 million re-election war chest will buy a lot of bullshit.
I'm not writing off the Dems just yet -- I guess I'm still optimistic enough that Boy George will get booted in 2004 -- but anyone who says the election is not an uphill battle for the Dems is deluding themselves.
Echoing the sentiments of the friend who first pointed this out to me: John Kerry owes me an apology. *I* knew he'd f--- it up this badly, and I have little doubt he'll soon exceed my expectations.
Did Dubbya ever apologize for calling that reporter a "major-league @$$hole" on the 2000 campaign trail?
I'll admit it. I'm a Bish supporter. But I don't think there should be an apology. Never apologize for saying what you *truly* believe.
The naughty language thing isn't exactly going to help Bush, if he really wants to push the issue. Kerry probably isn't getting the nomination, so this can't really help Bush even if it becomes a big deal - and Bush's record on the same subject isn't exactly exemplary (cf. cursing out Al Hunt in front of his 4-year old daughter in 1987, Clymer comment, Tucker Carlson article, etc.) Admittedly, those weren't intended for the public record, but I think "four year old" trumps that.
eh, screw the apology. he said what ALOT of us are thinking.
as for the Dem's not winning in 2004 before last week, i'd've agreed, unfortunately. however, thanks to a no-win situation, Bush has shot himself in the foot. i am referring to the lifting of steel tariffs. unions stick together and they represent a very vocal (high voting percentage) of the public. sure, steel is a very small part but, like the Teamsters who came to the aid of the striking grocery workers in CA, all different types of unions protect their own (if Bush lists tariffs on steel because of some noisy Europeans, what's to stop him from doing it to textiles or coal or timber or beef, etc.?) and believe me when i say that Bush's action will come back to haunt him.
I think Bush gave a half-assed apology for his "major league asshole" remark. But is Bush going to apologise for his "F--k Saddam, we're going to take him out" remark? Which he made over a year before before he invaded Iraq?
While I'm here, I'm going to copy a statement made in a discussion thread at Fark.com on this topic:
"McKerry is cursing like a serviceman. I guess that's why Bush never curses."
If Kerry didn't expect Bush to "...f-- it up as bad as he did." when referring to the war, I guess the only thing I would want to hear out of Kerry's lips, in as plain a manner of speaking as he feels is appropriate, is what he would have done differently in Iraq, that wouldn't have been a f-- up.
I mean, he voted to allow Bush to go forward, so he must have had an idea of how the situation SHOULD have been handled, and he thought that Bush did a bad job of it.
I’m not asking for speculation, but actual quotes from John Kerry.
He thinks he would have done better in Iraq. Why? What has he said or done that proves what he would have done wouldn’t be a “f-- up”?
I don’t know if the “reporter” for Rolling Stone had it on the ball enough to ask this, since I could give a rat’s patootie about what is in Rolling Stone, but can anyone offer an answer?
On a similar topic, why are some of the democratic candidates trying desperately to hit a younger audience? Al Sharpton on SNL (I will admit, the three wise men bit was funny). John Kerry in Rolling Stone. Are they trying to duplicate (unsuccessfully) the “Clinton Charm” (sax playing. The non-admission to marijuana use). Or is it just a modern equivalent of sitting down with the guys at the local donut shop to show your are one of them, even though you clearly aren’t?
Now let me get this straight Kerry should apologize for saying what we all know is true.
What a country!
As for the Dems not winning. It's too early for any pundit to do anything but blow smoke. But a friend of mine made a comment I think is worth considering.
Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Is there anyone who did not vote for him in 2000 who will now vote for him in 2004. And there seem to be quite a few folks out there who voted for him last time who won't this time.
Just something to ponder.
What's startling about the use of the "f" word is not that it's so shocking and lowbrow, but that it's so appropriate in describing the situation at hand.
History may have shown that the person who spends the most money wins, but since the existence of television, the shorter candidate has received more votes than the taller candidate only once: Jimmy Carter v Gerald Ford. (Gore is taller than Dubya - but the sentence is still correct. The odds of an electoral college/popular vote mismatch occurring again is low.)
Dubya is either 5'11 or 6' even, depending upon which report you read.
According to one article I read:
John Kerry is 6'4
Dick Gephardt is 6´1
John Edwards is 6´ even.
Al Sharpton is 5'10
Howard Dean is 5´9
Joe Lieberman 5´8
Dennis Kucinich 5´7
Carol Moseley Braun is 5´4
With these stats, Edwards is evenly matched, Sharpton, Dean, Lieberman, Kucinich and Braun would have to pull off a Jimmy Carter.
Gephardt or Kerry should beat Bush though. Kerry quite handily.
As far as recapturing the "Clinton Charm", anyone who studies the demographics of voters know that 18-24 year olds is a group that vastly undervotes.
Kerry's doing the right thing to "un-Gore" himself. In a field so large as the stampede to the first primaries and caucusi (sic), I don't blame him for setting up a young base of voters. Go for them, organized labor, and the seniors pissed at the AARP, and you've got a block of votes that only a Diebold voting machine can stop (if you believe the press about them, that is).
What should Kerry say he would have done differently? How about "I know what the hell we're going to do with Iraq once we win the war." Obviously Dubba didn't plan past putting Saddam's head on a pike in the Rose Garden.
Okay, I retract my earlier questions about the candidates trying to appeal more to younger folks.
The truth is much scarier than that. Too many people think that statistics matter a hill of beans.
Statistics (an inexact science at best) shows that Bush should lose because he is shorter. And this information is being passed like it really has relevance.
That ranks up there with PAD saying that there is some cosmic connection between his daughter and snowfall. She was born in December. Snow is a possibility at EVERY birthday.
Bush is shorter. This just means that he buys pants with shorter legs than Gephardt or Kerry. It really has nothing to do with who will win elections.
Sorry people. like it or not, by the laws set down in the constitution, Gore lost. The popular vs electoral vote discussion is a whining noise at this point. The whole reason the electoral college EXISTS, is to prevent what almost happened in the 2000 campaign from happening: that is to say, the larger numbers of people in a few high population centers decide for the whole country.
There are all kinds of ways to look at it. Gore had the higher numbers, because he focused on "city campaigning", and therefore should win (here in PA, for instance, Ed Rendell won the Governor’s race because he focused his campaigning on Philly and Pittsburgh. Outside the big cities, his numbers were weak. But since he focused on the major population centers, he carried the vote. And now libraries and schools in the less urban areas of the state are suffering in a BIG way, because of his budgeting.)
BUT, Bush had the higher number of electors, so he should win.
BUT, Gore was an incumbent VP, and taller, and statistically, HE should have won.
BUT, Bush won more of the 50 states than Gore did, so by a state count HE should have won (including Gore's home state. only one president ever won the overall election, but narrowly lost his home state. Gore not only lost his home state's election handily, but he lost the vote count in his HOME DISTRICT. Basically, the first Tennessee election Gore ever lost, was the presidential one in 2000).
It can go on and on, but it all boils down to the laws in this country working exactly as they did.
I will have to research, but there was a democratic contingency in 2000 that outlined for the Gore camp EXACTLY what happened for Bush, which was depend upon electoral votes, rather than popular votes. If memory serves, the dems were expecting to lose the popular but win the electoral vote.
Had things swung the other way, would the calls for doing away with the electoral college still be as loud? Would the "principled people" who say that Bush "stole" the election because he did not win the popular vote, still complain because Gore won without the popular?
It all boils down to: let it go.
Gore lost, legally. no amount of kvetching will change that.
If you really want to get Bush out, then vote for the candidate who stands the best chance, not the one who stands the furthest from Bush.
If I were inclined to vote for a democrat, I would vote for Leiberman. I disagree with him on a number of things, but he says he stands FOR something, rather than just spouting anti- this or anti-that rhetoric.
If Leiberman were to win the nomination, I think he would be the greatest threat to Bush in 2004, because he is close enough in views to many republicans, that he could actually steal votes from Bush.
He would have the far left votes, because they would rather vote for zippy the pinhead than Bush, and Leiberman would be able to steal a number of more centrist-conservative votes because his views are not so far to the left. He would just need to avoid saying anything about abortion.
But, in the opinion of this registered republican (and solid Bush supporter), Leiberman is the one of the dems running who would stand the best chance.
Sorry about the double-post (not to mention the length of my last post. Oy!).
Segansca, I asked for quotes from the man. He says he knows Bush screwed up, but he doesn't say what he would have done differently.
That's all I want. His actual words and plan, NOT some idea posted in quotes.
His comment implies either that he thinks his plan would have worked better, or that he is of the mind that he doesn’t know what would be the right thing, but what Bush did/is doing isn't it.
That's not terribly presidential. To be a president, one must lead. To lead means you look at a situation and KNOW how to fix it, or at least know how you will fake your way through it.
It also means making a decision, and sticking to it, even if it turns out to be wrong. Kerry decided that military action in Iraq was the "right thing" to do.
But he hasn't offered what the right path would have been. Just that Bush "f-- up" the whole thing.
It sounds to me more like he is letting politics get in the way of conviction, and that is a reason that he, and most of the other dems, will lose in 2004.
Stand up for something, of the White House will stay a republican residence for 4 more years. The sooner the dems realize this, the sooner they will win again.
BTW: What would YOUR exit strategy in Iraq be? You seem to think that Bush is bogged down in something, and that is what he "f-- up". So what would YOU do differently?
For the record, I think the best thing Kerry could do is to keep his yap shut about his comments, and not apologize.
Goes to the idea of standing by what you say.
I think Kerry is slowly losing his mind. I think it all started when that puppet Triumph the Insult Comic Dog totally dissed Kerry on Jay Leno, and ever since he's been getting more and more desparate. I think he fired his campaign manager around that time also. Seriously, big deal, he said a curse word. So what? I think he is at the point where he will say anything just to get noticed.
\\John Edwards is 6´ even.
Al Sharpton is 5'10
Howard Dean is 5´9\\
Men who say they're an even six feet tall are usually closer to 5'10". Men who say they're 5'10" are usually closer to 5'8" or so.
[W]hy are some of the democratic candidates trying desperately to hit a younger audience?
...because they want to win?
As Michael points out, Dubya is quite the potty mouth himself. Atrios also has the Saddam example as well as a couple nasty remarks he's made in the past to journalists (one in the presence of a 4-year-old).
That ranks up there with PAD saying that there is some cosmic connection between his daughter and snowfall.
I said that? I definitively said there was a cosmic connection?
Where?
PAD
I wouldn't even have bothered to make a comment if not for Peter's almost throw away line about the Democrats losing the Presidency next year. Honestly, I think it is more an issue of is the race one the Republicans can win, and I don't necessarily think so. 2000, was a strange, strange election (and whether or not your candidate won, that the Superme Court got involved should still trouble you in your sleep)and that Bush won was a coin toss, not a consensus. (Yes, the same could be said if Gore won, but that is not the issue being addressed).
Maybe someone needs to start thinking what many already feel: where would George Bush be in his Presidency had not the events of Sept. 11 happened? Putting aside any conspricacy theorists (and I'll admit that I'm one), that Bush would have found a reason to go into Iraq, where would he stand right now? If, as the saying goes, all politics are local, well, brother, on the local level things are pretty bad.
For all the talk about an improving economy, any improvement over the last 18 months is an improvement, but it is still far behind where we started at the beginning of Bush's Presidency. If Bush is actually confronted on the issues, to include our deepening involvement in Iraq, the shallowness of the policies and decision making would come to fore: Not everything can be made better by a some marmalade covered bread (unless you're Paddington, of course).
The problem is, an candiate has a problem when his opponent wraps himself in the flag. That is what Bush is going to do; I'd expect Gore to do the same thing in this situation. It appeals to the knee-jerk American, the one who, to paraphrase Bill Maher said, "Do to the least they can do by putting a flag on their car." It is by getting through to them that the election can be won. If those people can be convinced that there are problems internally that have nothing to do with Iraq, but everything to do with the money in their pocket, there is nothing more local than that, then the Democrats have a fighting shot at winning.
Of course, inherent in this is that the Democratic candidate have a real plan for growth or, alternatively, for restructuring our economy to reflect that it is now service based, not manufacturing. Without such a plan, the candidate would be offering nothing more than the promises predicated on fallacy that are always offered.
No matter what, I still believe the Republicans can still lose.
Oh, of course, no third-party candidates this time. That puts Bush back in, no matter what.
Wolfknight -- I posted those stats on height because someone else said he with the most money wins. Another stat says that no one has won the Presidency while in the House of Representatives. Taken together, we have a reason Gephardt would win, and one he would lose. So do they cancel each other out - do we need to find another stat?
I agree, all these stats are worthless. Every case is different. But the stats are out there, and people listen to them.
Someone's bound to say "But there is a rational reason why Money would make a difference" Yes...and in a TV age, it is hard to deny that how a candidate looks will make a difference too. Perot was ridiculed for his lack of stature and large ears. No One is about to admit they didn't vote for him because of that...but no one can argue either that looks don't have an at least subconscious effect on our actions.
In the end everyone will argue, after they voted, that they made their decision purely on the basis of policy positions. But most of the candidates are aware that that unfortunately isn't the case. Money plays a part. Charisma plays a part. Looks play a part. Lots of factors figure in.
and note...in my post...if it was my post you were responding to, I mentioned that Gore had the Popular vote, but I did not argue that Bush had the Electoral Vote. To quote "(Gore is taller than Dubya - but the sentence is still correct. The odds of an electoral college/popular vote mismatch occurring again is low.)" See...I said there was a mismatch. If I were arguing the results, I would have claimed that Gore had both the popular vote, and should have had the electoral vote if the popular vote in Florida had been counted correctly. I didn't say that though. So you didn't have to go off on that tirade.
However, there hasn't been a popular vote/electoral vote mismatch like that since Rutherford B Hayes...and he was nicknamed Rutherfraud for that exact reason. It's not surprising there is a similar reaction today to the 2000 election.
The Kerry Campaign Response:
"John Kerry saw combat up close, and he doesn't mince words when it comes to politicians who put ideological recklessness ahead of American troops," said spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "I think the American people would rather Card and the rest of the White House staff spend more time on fixing Bush's flawed policy in Iraq than on Sen. Kerry's language."
Not that it matters, because Kerry is not doing to get the DEM nomination, but his use of the "F" word was just so calculated. Just like his appearance on the Tonight Show with him riding a Halrey into the studio. Enough with the stunts. Lets hear some of Kerry's real plans for the country if he's elected.
I don't think there is any adult alive who uses "foul language" less than I do, but I gotta say that this is one instance where the right word was used.
Just who should Kerry apologize to, anyway? Clearly, Team Dubya takes the choice of words personally, but Kerry wasn't speaking to them, he was speaking the readers of Rolling Stone. Any of them demanding an apology?
I wonder if this might finally energize the Kerry campaign.
Alas, I see Dubya winning simply because Big Money wants him in and is giving him $200 million to run with, and because the key electoral states he "won" with now have more electoral votes. The 49.9% who voted for him are still voting for him, and the 50.1% who voted for Gore haven't found a single candidate to get excited by.
Albert Gore, if you are out there, it's still not too late to run.
I think it's great to watch Republicans, en masse, try to claim the moral high ground. Currently we've got an administration that uses the banners of Executive Privilege and National Security to hide everything and anything that they deem potentially sensitive (including reserving the right to black out any incriminating evidence from any reports about 9/11). Yet this time 8 years ago the same people were doing everything they could do discredit and remove Clinton from office because of personal indiscretions on his part.
The popular line of reasoning is that if Clinton is untrustworthy in his personal life, he's probably untrustworthy in his political life, and that's not something the American people should tolerate. And yet any time that any news about the goings-on within the Administration somehow manages to leave past the vast net designed to hold it all in, what we get is a load of lies, misdirection, and blatant favoritism.
I still haven't figured out how a tax cut on capital gains benefits the average person. Or how eliminating steel tariffs helps the US. Or how allowing companies to set up off-shore tax shelters while they ship jobs off US shores is a good thing. Or how replacing $75,000/year jobs with $35,000/year jobs is something Bush should be bragging about.
I also think that it's amusing that, more and more, Republicans are going on record opposing free speech! This is great! Any time anyone even slightly criticizes policy they are labeled as purveyors of hate speech!!! Criticizing the Bush Administration is now, apparently, as bad as what you'd hear at a KKK rally!
And, to switch gears, if you want to talk the "legality" of the 2000 election, there are two sides to the issue. How about a blatantly conservative US Supreme Court that overrules the Florida State Supreme Court's right to enforce it's own state constitution? And these being the same Justices that trumpet State's rights whenever it suits them?
How about the entire election hinging on the state that is governed by your brother? Or election results that hinge from an appointed official chosen by your brother? Or lists of known criminals used to block large groups of known Democratic voters if their name was even remotely close to any of those on the list? Or closing polls early? Or refusing to recount votes from old Jewish people for a borderline Nazi?
Yeah. All that sounds perfectly legal to me.
Phinn
Why apologize? People seem to forget when Bush was walking onto a stage with Dick, and the microphone was live. Bush saw a reporter and said " I don't like that A-hole." Bush didn't apologize. So what if Kerry didn't call Bush a dimwitted F@*KHEAD...he just said Bush F'ed up! Although it was funny listening to all the newscasters trying to relay the story! They sounded like little kids trying to say a bad word on the play ground. hahaha
(quote) It can go on and on, but it all boils down to the laws in this
country working exactly as they did. I will have to research, but there was a democratic contingency in 2000 that outlined for the Gore camp EXACTLY what happened for Bush, which was depend upon electoral votes, rather than popular votes. If memory serves, the dems were expecting to lose the popular but win the electoral vote.
Had things swung the other way, would the calls for doing away with the electoral college still be as loud? Would the "principled people" who say that Bush "stole" the electionbecause he did not win the popular vote, still complain because Gore won without the popular? (unquote)
While researching, please do check articles from the time which widely reported that the Bush campaign had in place, before the election, a crack legal team which already had papers prepared to serve the Supreme Court arguing that winning the popular vote should trump the electoral college votes, as that was their expectation of what would occur for their candidate.
(quote) It all boils down to: let it go. Gore lost, legally. no amount of kvetching will change that. (unquote)
While a minority kvetch, I must forcefully disagree. My own view is that the Supreme Court simply had no jurisdiction in this case. The Constitution specifically gives and delineates the authority to debate and decide such federal election disputes to the House of Representatives, allowing for the decsion to be made by the directly-elected representatives of the people, rather than by an appointed body.
In the case of the 2000 election, I might have disagreed with the choice made under such circumstances (as was done in the Hayes-Tilden election), but would recognize it as legitimately arrived at.
As to why Kerry hasn't specified how he could have done better than f'ing it up like George - Kerry doesn't have the luxury of a Secretary of State, or a Secretary of Defense, or the CIA, or the NSA or the Joint Chiefs, all of whom should have offered a "plan of action" that included Iraq's rapid capitulation!
I still haven't figured out how a tax cut on capital gains benefits the average person. Or how eliminating steel tariffs helps the US. Or how allowing companies to set up off-shore tax shelters while they ship jobs off US shores is a good thing. Or how replacing $75,000/year jobs with $35,000/year jobs is something Bush should be bragging about.
Well, to be fair, as a long time Democrat, I can see answers for the first two. But I STILL think Bush fucked it up...
Did Bush apologize for using the term "major league a$$hole " When refering Adam Clymer. Considerring we have lost more troops in the first 6 months of the Iraq war than in the first 3 years of Vietnam I think kerry was holding back. Apologizing makes a person look weak. Kerry should go on the offensive and challenge the president more on Iraq. He has the credentials but I don't know if he has the will.
> I still haven't figured out how a tax cut on capital gains benefits the average person. Or how eliminating steel tariffs helps the US.
It "helps" in that the EU don't slap $15bn of retalitory tariffs on stuff from the states Bush scraped last time...
Peter,
You'd actually vote for John Kerry if he were to issue an insincere apology? Seriously? You wouldn't take under consideration any of his positions on various issues or anything?
Well, okay. Sounds hasty and ill-considered to me, but it's your vote.
Nice TV Roundup this week. I don't watch any of the shows you review (aside from Angel) and yet I still find it interesting and insightful.
-Dave OConnell
No Kerry should not apologize. He's not going anywhere in the presidential race, the last thing he needs to do is issue some mealy mouthed apology that he doesn't mean.
What little respect I have for him in the first place would go right out the window if he apologizes.
This just in:
The AP and NPR are reporting that Al Gore will be endorsing Howard Dean tomorrow.
John Kerry's response reported to be:
"Aw, F*&@# !"
Wolfknight: I asked for quotes from the man [Kerry]. He says he knows Bush screwed up, but he doesn't say what he would have done differently.
That's all I want. His actual words and plan, NOT some idea posted in quotes.
Dude, you're kind of asking the wrong people. If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, go check out its stable. You're asking us to tell you how he would've done things better, only to refute us because we're putting words in the Kerry's mouth.
In all seriousness, why don't you hit Kerry's website and throw the gauntlet down there? I don't know how Kerry'd have handled Iraq better than Bush, but I admit I'd like to... it'd be nice to believe that Kerry's smart enough not to shoot off his mouth if he can't walk his talk, because if he doesn't have a better plan than Bush he just shot himself in the foot, big-time.
That OTHER John Byrne
Well, to be fair, as a long time Democrat, I can see answers for the first two. But I STILL think Bush fucked it up...
Oh, sure. I understand the rhetoric. Easing up on taxes will cause investors to invest more money, companies will become stronger, blah blah blah. The real meat and potatoes of the issue, though, is that the tax cut made rich people a lot richer, and I'm still seeing my fellow employees laid off.
And as for dropping the steel tariffs, yes, I can see how that "helped" the automotive industry that wants to use steel from the EU and China instead of buying American. Not only is that a fine example of Patriotic behavior in a time of war, but it's also helping out one industry by hamstringing another. American Steel either has to slash prices to compete with foreign steel, which will likely result in pay cuts and layoffs stateside, or risk going out of business altogether. So, who wants to bet that the automotive industry contributed more to Bush's campaign than the United Steelworkers?
It "helps" in that the EU don't slap $15bn of retalitory tariffs on stuff from the states Bush scraped last time...
And maybe if Bush would stop bending the EU over and trying to have his way with them, they wouldn't be so upset with us.
May I also point out that in all likelihood, Kerry knew exactly what he was saying, and that his choice of words was carefully chosen? I remember doing the Reagan/Mondale election when Bush Sr. emerged from his vice-presidential debate with his democratic opponent saying he 'Kicked a little ass.' And his numbers went up, as though kicking a middle aged woman's ass made him more of a man, but there you go.
Frankly, I don't think any of the Democratic challengers are strong enough to defeat Dubya, but I will be there bright and early on election day to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever he (or she) is. The prospect of four more years under Bush is terrifying in terms of what that will do for our environment, ecconomy and America's standing in the world community.
I'm sorry that the democrats bicker so much amongst themselves that they fuck everything up
"I'm sorry that the democrats bicker so much amongst themselves that they fuck everything up."
That's only because we don't have a high priest like Karl Rove or Rush Limnbaugh telling us what we should be thinking...
PAD,
You think the Dems will lose in 2004? Why? I'm beginning to think the opposite - and I'm on the "right" side of the fence.
This Medicare issue is becoming big on the right - and I mean the "fiscal" right, not the "moral" right. The era of Big Government is not only back, but back in a big way under Bush. An entitlement expansion is not something the US government should be doing when we are already running deficits in a time of war/economic sluggishness.
Bush-43 is going the way of Bush-41. He's going to make a good chunk of his base uninspired, while Dean fires up the Liberal base that's still out for blood from 2000. Right now, I'm giving the Democrats 3-2 odds.
I swear, if Kerry issues an apology along those lines--something like, "All right, I apologize: I'm sorry that George Bush f---ed it up" or "I'll apologize for saying it as soon as George Bush apologizes for doing it"--I'll vote for him.
Cause you would vote for Bush otherwise, right?
Jesus Christ... What's with America these days? Ooooh! PROFANITY!
I HATE POLITICAL APOLOGIES! THEY'RE MEANINGLESS DRIVEL MEANT TO PLACATE THE WORTHLESS MASSES OF THIS COUNTRY!
God, I wish I could gather every weak-willed sissy out there who thinks that politicians need to make apology policy and mow them all down with a machine gun. Cutting a few hundred people in half with gas-tipped rapid-fire shells should adjust the thinking of some of the jackasses in this nation.
So PAD, are you saying that John Kerry is our last, best hope for peace?
Seriously, it's always nice to see the Republicans troll out in threads like this. It's all kind of rediculous, becausewe won't really see who does what until there's a Democratic nominee. Until then, it's just tilting at windmills.
But hey, how about that Battlestar Gallactica, huh? Huh? :)
This thread is hilarious. The democrat party can now add cussing to its long list of things for which they promote and advocate: lying under oath to protect one's family, commiting adultery as long as it is consentual, flag burning, removing any vestige of religion from the public square, and protecting eagle's eggs while simultaneously defending the right to kill unborn humans. I guess the goal of these liberals is to get enough people to accept moral relativism so that no one can ever accuse them of hypocrisy (But at the same time they throw around that term willy-nilly). The barbarians are truly at the gates.
I would give away quite a bit (I haven't yet decided what) if I could just get a "None of the Above" category in my voting booth.
I like what Lazarus Long said about democratic voting. If you're not familiar with the writings, check with me.
On this, from skrinq:
While researching, please do check articles from the time which widely reported that the Bush campaign had in place, before the election, a crack legal team which already had papers prepared to serve the Supreme Court arguing that winning the popular vote should trump the electoral college votes, as that was their expectation of what would occur for their candidate.
Not quite, but something similar: the story was that, if Bush got a popular vote win but an EC loss, the Republicans would announce that the popular vote winner "should" be the winner, and try to shake lose enough electors from whatever states they could in order to make that happen -- since in most cases the electors are in fact legally free to do what they want. Unprecedented? Well, these guys have been pretty good at "unprecedented but legal" in the past few years.
Let's see. How did he refer to a certain news reporter, when he "didn't know the mic was on"?
"Major league a-hole" I think it was. (Censored on my part. This ain't *my* forum! ;) )
All Kerry did was call a spade a spade. And he *knew* it was going to be on the record. I think his response to George should be a sincere FU.
Wildcat
You think the Dems will lose in 2004? Why?
A complete lack of unity, perhaps?
The Dems have 9 candidates right now. And who's firing Dems up the most? Hilary Clinton, and she's not running.
Now, myself, I won't have a say in the Democratic candidate - I'm registered independant. But even if I was registered Dem I can't say I have any idea who I would vote for.
I could say a couple I wouldn't vote for though. :)
All Kerry did was call a spade a spade.
Yeah, I think if Kerry did that there'd be a much bigger uproar...
It's funny, because it took me years to realize where that saying came from.
Unless I'm totally stupid and I'm reading too much into things.
I guess the goal of these liberals is to get enough people to accept moral relativism so that no one can ever accuse them of hypocrisy
No, we just want to cook Republican babies over a stack of burning Bibles. Moral relativism is just a red herring.
And hey, does that mean incest is immoral relativism?
While a minority kvetch, I must forcefully disagree. My own view is that the Supreme Court simply had no jurisdiction in this case. The Constitution specifically gives and delineates the authority to debate and decide such federal election disputes to the House of Representatives, allowing for the decsion to be made by the directly-elected representatives of the people, rather than by an appointed body.
Actually, I'm not sure the Constitution does give that role to the House. The House is the judge of its own elections, as the Senate is the judge of its own. The House only comes into play in Presidential elections when no candidate has a majority of the Electoral College. In the 2000 election it was perfectly clear that somebody did have a majorty; but which candidate depended on how the Florida vote came out. If Florida had gone for Buchanan (because the ballots were just that hard to read) and the results in the Electoral College had been Gore 268, Bush 245, Buchanan 25, then the House would have voted by state.
The 2000 election had a different question presented, namely how the electors themselves are selected. This being the 20th Century United States (not 2001 yet when decided), the problem became a court case. For counting Florida votes in Florida, the case appropriately begain in the Florida court system. It got to the United States Supreme Court on appeal from the Florida Supreme Court, because any time there is a Federal issue in the state courts the losing party may appeal to the US court system. The vote in the Supreme Court was actually 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. (People forget that. If John Kerry had been running it would have been 7-2 that the Florida Court f--ked up.)
The thing that caused the fuss was that the vote on what to do about the problem was a 5-4 vote that effectively certified the Bush electors because the Florida Supreme Court was ordered to do something constitutionally permissible in the time allotted, and the only thing they could really do by the deadline (under Florida law, mind) was certify the existing slate of electors. If that wasn't suspicious enough, the 5-4 vote was along general Republican-Democrat lines (or more accurately, conservative-liberal, since two of the "Democrat" Justices were appointed by Republicans), and the Republicans, who usually are deferential to the state governments, voted to overrule the state court. (The Democrats, who usually are sympathetic to Federal claims, also voted backwards, so nobody comes out of this looking completely innocent.) Still, however much the actual decision may bother people, the process by which we got to that decision was fairly uncontroversial.
The kicker is that based on other court decisions, the Bush v. Gore decision may have been right all along, because the Supreme Court has been consistent in those holdings. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020709.html
Oh, and by the way, the only party I recall contemplating lobbying electors was the Democratic Party (although disavowed by Warren Christopher). http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/10/electoral.renegades/
On a similar topic, why are some of the democratic candidates trying desperately to hit a younger audience?
I'm astounded you'd have to ask this: It's because young people aren't voting. Of all the Americans (about half) who never bother to vote, young voters account for, I believe, the most sizable percentage. The Democrats are clearly hoping that by stirring the youth of America into action, they can get enough angry voters to get Bush out.
Not that it'll happen, because the youth of America traditionally does the exact opposite of what the previous generation wants them to do. I touched on that in "Knight Life" by having Arthur give an impassioned speech telling young people that, no matter what, they are absolutely not to go out to the polls under any circumstance. Naturally under-25 voting increased.
PAD
Not that it matters, because Kerry is not doing to get the DEM nomination, but his use of the "F" word was just so calculated.
Not everyone can get attention by doing something as uncalculated as showing up in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier...
PAD
May I also point out that in all likelihood, Kerry knew exactly what he was saying, and that his choice of words was carefully chosen?
Personally, I've no problem with the notion of a politician choosing his words carefully. Nice change of pace.
PAD
Kerry is an idiot and backpeddles on everything. He has ruined the state of MA. Businesses & people are leaving the Bay State in droves and this moron is running for President? Good luck to folks who buy into his shit. If he ever got elected, I'd move to Canada.
PS: I'd vote for Al Sharpton before I'd vote for this a-hole.
Why doesn't anyone ask Kerry how many innocent women & children he killed during the war? eh? And yeah, I'm from the Bay State so I know firdthand what this moron has done to ruin MA.
end rant
Dee... your comment about "Why doesn't anyone ask Kerry how many innocent women & children he killed during the war?" Really makes you shine - as a beacon of ignorance and stupidity.
Statments like that are nearly as bad as some ignorant girl commenting a few months ago (in regards to Clark and Dean) who asked "Hmm. A man who's saved lives, or a man who's ordered soldiers to kill? Tough choice."
While I still have to decide on which of the democratic candidates I like, teenage-esque comments like yours make my head ache.
PAD replied:
Not everyone can get attention by doing something as uncalculated as showing up in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier...
And it's so unheard of to show up on an aircraft carrier wearing such garb? Bush would have looked pretty out of place wearing a three-piece suit.
(quote) The 2000 election had a different question presented, namely how the electors themselves are selected. This being the 20th Century United States (not 2001 yet when decided), the problem became a court case. For counting Florida votes in Florida, the case appropriately begain in the Florida court system. It got to the United States Supreme Court on appeal from the Florida Supreme Court, because any time there is a Federal issue in the state courts the losing party may appeal to the US court system. The vote in the Supreme Court was actually 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. (People forget that. (unquote)
Again, still subject to multiple interpretations.
Bush claimed the dispute damaged him personally in the SCOTUS case - in actuality, U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 5 relating to controversy of electors, and relegating such matters exclsuively to the states, is mot apropos.
And again, the Constitution and/or thr rules and precedent and tradition of the Electoral College cover these types of cases, and leave the SCOTUS out of it altogether (as the SCOTUS is specifically excluded from election language in the Constitution, my own interpretation would be that the 10th amendment prevails, granting undelegated powers to the States or to the people - as States are cited as having the rights to choose electors, had there been a case of one (or more) state(s) versus Florida involved (rather than citizens of those states - se 11th amendemnt, below), then SCOTUS would have jursidiction ). If there is a dispute or disparity as to the validity or credentials of electors when their votes are counted (which was, IIRC, early-mid Dec. 2000), that situation is covered in U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15: http://books.cqpress.com/nomajority/61352CQappenB.pdf
Instead of involving SCOTUS, the mandate is to proclaim, debate and agree as to whether such a disputed claim is or is not so (U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15). If yes, that would, ipso facto, have sent the decision to the House, as there would be no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, and in such a case, there would be 51 votes cast (one vote each from each state delegation and one from the D.C. delegation - per the 23rd amendment), with the voting limited to the top 3 finishers in elctoral votes, as per the 12th amendment (which also allows for the case of the House being unable to choose by majority a president). In such cases, the choice of Vice-President devolves upon the Senate, whose chiuce must receive a majority of a two-third quorum (per the 12th amendment).
Appreciate the reasoned counter-argument, but still read the Constitution differently. it being he 20th century or any other is not germane; the credentialing, selection and all other facets of selecting electors are sepecifically delineated to the Stat, to wit,
Article II, Section 2:
Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senartors and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress....
Also Section 3 (too lengthy to be posted here) and also the 11th amendment:
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Some other relevant citations:
McPherson v. Blacker (the power to apppoint electors rests solely within the states - could be extrapolated to cover that the final determination of counted votes rests with the states).
The clsoest precedent, of course, is the election of 1876, which did not go to the House, as it involved challenges to the validity of the votes cast i the Electoral college (a situation that would have occurred in 2000, but was detoured by the SCOTUS case). Not to prattle on too long, but in that instance, the House and Senate, agreeing that the Constitution was silent on matters involving challenges to the validity of electoral votes, set up a commission to make the decision as to the validity of the electoral votes, made up of 5 Senators, 5 representatives and 5 justices. Precedent was thus established for dealing with a like situation (short-circuited by the SCOTUS case in 20000, IMHO).
The result of the 1876 election was the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (in modern form, U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15 - see above.
The House of Representatives has a very detailed set of rules involving disputes in Presidential electoral votes:
I've been rather busier than usual the last few weeks, so I may have missed something.
Whatever happened to Clark? I thought he was throwing his electoral hat into the ring, but see no mention of him to speak of in the above. Has he changed his mind? Or did he never formally enter the race to begin with?
Wolfknight - I hate to burst your bubble, but libraries all over Pennsylvania are suffering, not just the ones in rural towns.
The problem isn't any kind of favoritism Rendell is showing to Philly and Pittsburgh, but rather the fact that he and our Republican-controlled General Assembly still haven't agreed to a budget - six months into the the state's fiscal year.
A pox on both parties, I say.
And it's so unheard of to show up on an aircraft carrier wearing such garb?
Only if you're worthy of wearing the uniform.
As somebody who wasn't in the military, I think it's shameful that Bush wore that. It's like he's trying to be cool or something. He looked like a fool instead.
A link to an old article on Dubya's swearing
Conservatives can bitch and moan about moral relativism and hypocrisy all they want...and try to proclaim it is alright for Bush to have said 'asshole' on the mic because he didn't know he could be heard (Kind of like Beloved Reagan saying 'The bombing will begin in 5 minutes'...he didn't realize the mic was on, so it was alright to joke about starting WWIII)
But in 1988, when a reporter directly asked Dubya "What do you and your father talk about when not talking about politics" Bush's one-word response was "Pussy". He knew the mic was on. He knew a reporter was recording the response. He knew it would be printed.
So for Bush to get upset with Kerry for his cussing is 100% pure hypocrisy. And there is no way to honestly attack Kerry for his language without attacking Bush for his.
In regards to Bush & the flight suit - When Eisenhower was President, some of his advisors wanted him to make appearences in his military uniform to remind people he was a war leader. He refused because the Presidency is a civillian office & it would not be approiate for him to appear in uniform as President.
As for Bush looking out of place in a three piece suit, Presidents have been appearing on military bases in suits since Washington. While some Presidents would wear jackets &/or hats representing the unit they were visiting, none of them appeared in full uniform.
The whole flight suit point is moot anyway. Bush has already carefully constructed a new photo opportunity complete with a new military uniform and a fake turkey to boot!
I think it is great that this guy, who has gone on record saying that the worst thing about liberals is that they feel guilty about being privileged, chooses to stage his photo opportunities with the run-of-the-mill grunts! He's willing to go down to their level, time and again, just to earn a few PR points. Wow. What a sacrifice.
Phinn:
**The whole flight suit point is moot anyway. Bush has already carefully constructed a new photo opportunity complete with a new military uniform and a fake turkey to boot!
I think it is great that this guy, who has gone on record saying that the worst thing about liberals is that they feel guilty about being privileged, chooses to stage his photo opportunities with the run-of-the-mill grunts! He's willing to go down to their level, time and again, just to earn a few PR points. Wow. What a sacrifice.**
Ok, now, what? "go down to their level?" Talking about our troops...? What the f### is that supposed to mean?
In any case, if you honestly and truly believe that it was all just a PR stunt, then you will never ever understand. I will say this, many news organizations were UPSET because only a few reporters were allowed to go. NYT is still complaining about it not having a representative. Not too many PR stunts neglect to bring, you know, the PR.
No, all the reporters were too busy hanging with Hilary at HER PR stunt...
The limited number of reporters was in order to keep the photo op a surprise until the last minute. Allegedly, even Laura and Mommy and Daddy Bush didn't know where he was going.
It was also because Bush only allows reporters that will report on him favorably at most of his photo ops to begin with.
I think live coverage on Fox News counts as remembering to "bring the PR."
Craig Reis wrote:
>>The Dems have 9 candidates right now. And who's firing Dems up the most? Hilary Clinton, and she's not running.<<
Nah, the Dems aren't getting fired up about her. It's the Republicans (still) using her as a boogeyman that's generating all the press (and sizable donations for repugnican coffers, I'm sure).
Rob
History has a way of kicking out presidents right after wars, no matter how high their popularity is at the start. Another lesson that Jr should have learned from Daddy.
You mentioned plural... where's your second example?
** Is there anyone who did not vote for him in 2000 who will now vote for him in 2004. And there seem to be quite a few folks out there who voted for him last time who won't this time.
Just something to ponder.**
60+% approval rating
And it's so unheard of to show up on an aircraft carrier wearing such garb?
Only if you're worthy of wearing the uniform.
As somebody who wasn't in the military, I think it's shameful that Bush wore that. It's like he's trying to be cool or something. He looked like a fool instead.
Are you saying that's your perspective, you having been somebody who wasn't in the military, or are you alleging Bush wasn't in the military? Actually he was in the military (National Guard counts, just ask a few thousand people in Iraq now). In fact, he was an Air National Guard fighter jock and was peeved that the current military people wouldn't let him fly the plane.
(In my best Eeyore voice:) Some people go to good law schools and some don't. I'm not complaining, but there it is.
Instead of involving SCOTUS, the mandate is to proclaim, debate and agree as to whether such a disputed claim is or is not so (U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15). If yes, that would, ipso facto, have sent the decision to the House, as there would be no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, and in such a case, there would be 51 votes cast (one vote each from each state delegation and one from the D.C. delegation - per the 23rd amendment), with the voting limited to the top 3 finishers in elctoral votes, as per the 12th amendment (which also allows for the case of the House being unable to choose by majority a president). In such cases, the choice of Vice-President devolves upon the Senate, whose chiuce must receive a majority of a two-third quorum (per the 12th amendment).
OK, apart from the fact that this reads like a Shakespeare lampoon of a lawyer's argument, I'm going to try to address it. First to get the factual errors out of the way: The 1876 election was a debacle. President Hayes was elected 8-7 by a straight party line vote in an ad hoc committee with no real Constitutional basis. I don't believe anyone in government or the legal profession could reasonably assert that this was a precedent we need to follow.
Second, the election only goes to the House if the Electoral College is unable to select a President. The wrangling in Bush v. Gore was before the Electoral College even met; therefore the House didn't have an opportunity to make that determination. If you're making a normative argument that ethically the courts should have stayed out of it and let the backup procedures in the Constitution run in January, that's one thing. But don't confuse it with an assertion that the courts had no basis to act.
Which brings us to the third thing. Even you are citing 3 U.S.C. S 5. The ultimate interpretation of a Federal statute has been the responsibility of the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) since the inception of the Republic. You don't even have to stop at Marbury v. Madison to find that; Hamilton offered that as his interpretation of a document he helped write (the Constitution) in the Federalist Papers.
None of this challenges your one really accurate assertion (citing McPherson v. Blacker) that the states are the ones who select the electors. The thing that the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore (and really the only important thing the Supreme Court said there) was that the states cannot violate the rest of the Constitution in selecting the electors. And again, the Supreme Court is the organization that has the ultimate authority on interpreting what it is that the Constitution says.
And again, the Constitution and/or thr rules and precedent and tradition of the Electoral College cover these types of cases,
The Electoral College has precedents? How does that work?
and leave the SCOTUS out of it altogether (as the SCOTUS is specifically excluded from election language in the Constitution,
It is? Where? I'm pretty sure someone in the Gore camp would have noticed a Constitutional provision excluding the Supreme Court from participation in electoral disputes.
my own interpretation would be that the 10th amendment prevails, granting undelegated powers to the States or to the people - as States are cited as having the rights to choose electors, had there been a case of one (or more) state(s) versus Florida involved (rather than citizens of those states - se 11th amendemnt, below), then SCOTUS would have jursidiction ). If there is a dispute or disparity as to the validity or credentials of electors when their votes are counted (which was, IIRC, early-mid Dec. 2000), that situation is covered in U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15: http://books.cqpress.com/nomajority/61352CQappenB.pdf
The 10th Amendment may be your interpretation, but it's not an interpretation that would find much support. You could put three copies of every court opinion holding that the Ninth or Tenth Amendments controlled some dispute into a notebook, and still have an empty notebook. The 11th Amendment is really a red herring, because it's the 14th Amendment (you know, the one that came three amendments later) that gives the Federal government powers over the states, and particularly the power that was raised. The Eleventh Amendment gutted diversity suits (people in one state suing another State) and limited Congress's Article I powers to act directly on the states, but the Fourteenth Amendment overrules the Eleventh to the extent that they conflict.
Also, 3 USC 15 governs the procedure when the election is thrown into the House, which would only have happened if the Florida votes had been removed from play entirely (as they would have been if no one had ever been able to settle on a slate of electors). There are a couple problems with this. First, excluding every Florida voter from having any effect on the Presidential election (other than perhaps making us look like a banana republic) would have been sort of a disaster. Second, it's probably the correct interpretation of the Constitution that a majority of the electoral votes cast would make a President, not necessarily a majority of the possible electoral votes. (Thus Gore would have been President if the recounts had carried over into, say, the first week of January. The plot, as they say, thickens.) This also brings us back to 3 USC 5. That statute is a "safe harbor" provision (which is unconstitutional if we accept your interpretation that the Federal government has no business interfering with the selection of electors) that declares that NO challenge to an elector's qualifications is possible if the electors are certified by the state at least six days before the Electoral College votes. That was where the deadline Katherine Harris wanted to meet came from. By extending the time for the recounts, the Florida Supreme Court 1) changed the rules for vote counting after the voting concluded, 2) removed Florida from the "safe harbor" and thus opened Florida up to challenges it would have been immune to but for the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, and 3) was highly selective in its orders, ordering recounts in some counties but not other (Republican) counties, being picky about "undervotes" vs. "overvotes," and giving so little guidance about what a voter's mark looked like that the decision to count or not count a certain alleged "vote" was effectively in the unbridled discretion of the poll reviewer. (Remember here that "selective" and "discriminatory" were once synonyms.) Problems 1) and 3) raised 14th Amendment problems, which is how the US Supreme Court got involved. QED.
When my spouse apologizes she uses this form:
"I am sorry you were mad for what I said"
or even better
"I am sorry you suck"
She is often angry so I know which of them she will use.
Kerry should say "I am sorry for being honest about how I feel about GW Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. "
Whether I agree with it or not, if he did mean what he said initially what the f--- is wrong with being honest. At least you know what he f
Alexander - I have to wonder how many "sensitive" people are left in a thread focusing on the word "fuck", edited or not.
**In fact, he was an Air National Guard fighter jock and was peeved that the current military people wouldn't let him fly the plane.
**
Did he actually show up long enough to learn how to fly one?
Kerry shouldn't apologize. I don't think anyone should apologize for things said on or off camera. If you said it, you must believe it. If you day it when it is inappropriate, well, things like that happen all the time. Just walk through a Wal-Mart with a toddler sometime, and note how many people watch their f-- mouths.
Bush won the election legally. Does it suck if you didn‘t vote for him? Sure. But Gore showed that he was ready to do all kinds of things to win, up to and including involving the courts (Gore's people were the first to file any court papers).
PAD - you did seem to IMPLY that there was some cosmic significance to your daughter's birthday and snow.
As for asking why the attempted focus on younger people, I guess the real question is why try now? I mean history has shown that once the election is done, if you aren't a senior citizen, you can go pound sand, because Medicare is all that really matters. I would rather see a candidate encourage young people to vote, because it is the right thing to do, rather than to (painfully) to appear like they are "one of them".
Den - The point was that the election in PA was decided by the major cities, disenfranchising many rural and smaller city voters.
On a smaller scale, the county where I live in PA is home to a medium sized city that gets all kinds of funding/grants from the county. Where I live gets the shaft from the county for being as far from the city in question as we are. We still pay county taxes, but watch all our money fly north, and because of the outdated county governmental structure, we have no say, and very little recourse (our county commissioners were decided by the larger population centers, to hell with the little guys).
But Gore showed that he was ready to do all kinds of things to win, up to and including involving the courts (Gore's people were the first to file any court papers).
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn't have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
The Florida fiasco was such a joke they should've thrown the whole state's results out.
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn't have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
Bush would not have done what Gore did. He would have followed Nixon's example from 1960 and graciously stepped aside. Bush is not as obsessed with power as his liberal opponents are. I hope to God that the Dems nominate someone with a brain, like Liberman, so we can have some intelligent debate and not "my america can beat up your america" rhetoric coming from the left these days. I swear the black helicopter crowd is running the dems these days.
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn't have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
Thankfully, we will never know. All I do know is what ACTUALLY happened, and not some idea of "Bush would have done the same".
Upon what do you base that Bush would have done the same? Did anyone see Gore going straight to the courts as he did? I mean, it’s not like he conceded the state on election night or anything.
You are absolutely correct. The FL fiasco WAS such a joke, because Gore didn't know when to quit. Had he stood by his initial concession, as many politicians would have, rather than waffling and crying like a child that things were unfair, the whole thing would never have happened, and we never would have heard of such silliness as "pregnant chad".
I can't believe I'm about to say something nice about Gore, but I think it's a little unfair to blame him for going into court. There's no way to know what Bush would have done had the vote been reversed, but I think we all have to admit that it would be very very tempting to do the exact same thing that Gore did. I'd almost go so far as to say that it would take an absolute saint to step back when you're a couple hundred votes in a recount away from the Presidency, and no saint belongs in the White House.
That said, Gore did a number of nasty things, like recanting his election-night concession (the concession sadly had no legal effect), asking for every vote to be counted because every voter is important-- provided of course that the endangered votes happened to be in Democratic counties, and insisting on multiple successive recounts. (Challenging a close election was one thing, and I can sympathize with that. Demanding that we have recounts until he won was another.) Not to mention the pre-election moves like Bush's DWI revelation, deceptive commercials, and the ever-present race card. ( http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html ) I just think that if we're going to blame Gore we should blame him for the right things.
On election 2000. Many of the counties in Florida ignored Florida law and did not exaimne "overvotes". These are to be exaimned by hand and if the "intent of the voter" could be concluded the vote counted. These votes were to be included in the final certified count.
28,000 overvoters were never counted. The law was not followed, if it would have been there may not have been any court case to complaign about.
Den - The point was that the election in PA was decided by the major cities, disenfranchising many rural and smaller city voters.
They were not disenfranchised. They voted, their guy lost. That's how elections work. Nobody stopped them from voting, that's disenfranchisement. Saying that your vote doesn't count just because the majority of people living in the more populated areas voted the other was is just sour grapes.
On a smaller scale, the county where I live in PA is home to a medium sized city that gets all kinds of funding/grants from the county. Where I live gets the shaft from the county for being as far from the city in question as we are. We still pay county taxes, but watch all our money fly north, and because of the outdated county governmental structure, we have no say, and very little recourse (our county commissioners were decided by the larger population centers, to hell with the little guys).
Pennsylvania's local government system is one of the most outmoded in the country. We have too many tiny municipal entities that do nothing but duplicate services, or worse, neglect essential services (we're talking plowing the roads here) because the tax base is too small to support them.
Incidentally, the county I live (Dauphin), has the opposite extreme. Here, the county government is dominated by the sprawling suburbs and our commissioners are quite content to let our city decay away into nothing.
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn't have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
Bush would not have done what Gore did. He would have followed Nixon's example from 1960 and graciously stepped aside.
Considering the fact that Bush’s team had drawn up plans to fight for their man in the event that Gore won the electoral vote and Bush won the popular vote (which is what they thought might happen – it was expected to be a close election; who imagined it would go the other way?), it is a very safe assumption to make when I say that Bush would have fought tooth-and-nail to get votes recounted and would have fought just as hard as Gore did if not moreso.
Bush is not as obsessed with power as his liberal opponents are. I hope to God that the Dems nominate someone with a brain, like Liberman, so we can have some intelligent debate and not "my america can beat up your america" rhetoric coming from the left these days.
Liberals? Obsessed with power? It isn’t the liberals who are currently doing their damndest to gerrymander themselves into perpetuity. (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031208fa_fact)
And if you want intelligent debate, Bush really isn’t your man. I don’t claim to know how smart he is and with a prepared speech he’s decent, but as a debater and extemporaneous speaker, Bush is painful to watch.
Guys, you seem to have your history all knotted up.
It was not the Democrats who took the Florida stuff to the courts first. The first court case was filed by the Republicans.
Really.
Should he apologize for saying what he did? Nah. I don't think so. BUT, on the other hand, he should apologize to his supporters and those he's got trying to round up votes for him for forgetting that he's in the public arena, he can't talk like that or he'll alienate so many people that MIGHT have otherwise voted for him. Just my opinion. Not that it matters much to anyone but me, and even THAT's debatabe.
Nat:
Check the timeline.
Nov. 13, Gore campaign joins in a suit to extend certification deadline. In response, but not before, Bush's campaign sues to stop manual recount and deadline extension.
The first candidate to join in a suit, or file court papers, was Gore.
That timeline 1) says both things happened at 10 AM, and 2) doesn't have everything. The Bush campaign had announced days before that they were seeking an injunction against the manual recount. http://www.surveyusa.com/ArchivedArticles/UPINewsArticleGOPseeksinjunctiontostopFloridarecount.htm
Nat, whatever kook source you're getting information from is wrong. By law when elections are so close there is a required recount. Bush did not oppose this. He won the first recount if you recall. What Bush opposed was Gore hand picking certain counties (heavily democrat) for a SECOND recount, and the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of punch ballots of what a voter "intended". The first judge was correct in his ruling, but the supreme court of Florida decided to rewrite the law, which brought the US Supreme Court into it, which should never have had to happen. Besides, if Gore could have won his HOME state this would not of even been an issue. The Clinton/Gore team has successfully politicized every freakin' aspect of the system. Democrats should be embarassed of these guys. Not defending them.
Nat, a suggestion for entering into debates:
Check your references and make sure they do not contradict the point you are trying to make.
You insist that Bush and/or his supporters were the first to go to court. You then post an article that says that not only did Gore supporters go to court first, but Gore's chief in FL admitted to several instances that he was aware of.
In the article appears the following paragraph:
Baker [part of the Bush camp] argued that Gore supporters have filed eight lawsuits challenging the election, so the Republicans are not the first to go to court. Daley [part of the Gore camp] said he thought they were only five and that the national Democratic Party had nothing to do with any of them.
Care to un-knot your history there a little?
I should have been clearer in saying that the Republicans were the first [i]of the parties[/i] to go to court. Yes, private citizens went to court first.
The folks who Baker described as "Gore supporters" were Florida citizens who appeared to be disenfranchised by the situation. The suits were not filed by Gore and his staff, nor by the Democratic party. This is in contrast to what happened on November 11th. Even NewsMax (a source for rabid right-wing news spin) says that "The first political party to file any legal action was, indeed, the Republican Party."
"Wolfknight", if I was looking for someone to lecture me on debate, it wouldn't be someone who had just cited a partial timeline that didn't even say what he claimed. Really.
And Chris, if you want to rant about my sources, you may want to have your own sources to back you up, rather than apparently using your own presumptions as an excuse for yet another shallow rail against Gore and (for some unlinked reason) Clinton.
Nat:
I wasn't lecturing. I was suggesting an improvement.
Yes, the first party to file was the republicans. But that was not what you said. You said "The first court case was filed by the republicans. Really." (emphasis added)
I wasn't speaking about what party filed the first case, rather the first case period, which was what you had said.
If you intend to present information in a debate, it would help to be clear as to what you mean to say, rather than have to apologize for misspeaking later.
Ah, another lecture on debating from "Wolfknight", who seems to show little concern for the information he's presented, but feels the need to echo my statement that I should have been clearer.
But if you're concerned about what was actually being addressed, I suggest that you look at your post "Upon what do you base that Bush would have done the same? Did anyone see Gore going straight to the courts as he did?" Gore did not go "straight to the courts". Gore did not go to the courts until after the Bush team had.
Really.
Let me guess: I'll get another "Wolfknight" lecture on debating guidelines for people who aren't him?