Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why has neither the State AG nor the Federal AG started an investigation into this?

BECAUSE EVERY STATE HAD ILLEGALITIES, FOR BOTH SIDES!! Why can't this get through to you?! You do an investigation in one state, you have to do them in ALL! And that is a collosal waste of money. When you have a fixed budget it's kinda hard to say you are going to spend more than double what you've been allocated.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Furthermore... if the AG was to investigate that which 'benefited' him how come there was no investigation into the 2000 Mo. race, which directly influenced the AG?

Sorry the conspiracy theories of the left simply don't wash.

[chequita guevara]

Conspiracy theory nothing. I've seen the list with my own eyes. I've also seen the documentation that Harris' office sent to to the company handling the list which told the company to break the law.

Yes, there were problems in a number of states, but nothing which came close to what happened in Florida. Furthermore, even if illegalities happened in every state which benefitted both sides, THEY SHOULD ALL BE INVESTIGATED AND PUNISHED! Democracy isn't supposed to be about convenience. That's the problem with you Republicans. It's all about winning with you, and not about the country or democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the problem with your Lefties. All about high minded ideals without any thought to the consequences. You investigate all claims and we'd still be without President today.

Sorry, utopian ideas don't fly.

And btw, we don't live in a Democracy and that was by design. I'm not for Democracy, but a Republic. And my view is more for the country. To even pretend that your plan would be good for the country is utterly moronic.

[Kepler]

Bush had his huge popularity handed to him by 9/11. Recall that immediately prior to it, polls were showing that if the election were rerun Gore would have won (again, but also in electoral terms this time).

But, Bush has survived:

(1) a totally crapola economy
(2) a very bad economic policy
(3) the potential identification of the GOP with corporate CEO excesses (blown by the Dems)
(4) the potential national heebeejeebees over the Iraq adventure (blown by the Dems)
(5) numerous little embarrassments by his drug and alcohol abusing family

So I'll belly up and admit that I underestimated him -- a less talented politcian would have managed to screw himself on at least 2 of the above, and George (or ****, or Karl, or whoever's pulling the strings) sailed through untouched.

My take on his popularity:

50% 9/11, after which the US would have followed *anybody* with a C-in-C hat
25% utter incompetence by the all-too-loyal opposition
10% great smile and insincere but well-studied man-of-the-people appeal
10% great handlers
5% the "gut the pledge" district court decision
0% his policies, which nobody knows anyway -- maybe they're national security too.

All the same, you know Clinton would have blown it all the first weekend by screwing the pooch (ahem, just an expression... probably).

[Dom Pedro II]

Many countries have gone in the garb of a Republic...

what if they suspended elections in definitely tomorrow?

Would it still be ok with you as long as business kept going?

I support free trade, extremely limited government, and capitalism, but I support them because I think they are right. I support them on principle not because I think its the way for me to get the most cash...

And I don't think we should just say "Oh well" to corruption. We should pursue it when we can, and we should be ashamed when we can't.

[Dom Pedro II]

I find this "Bush has survived, Bush has overcome" stuff to be rather amusing... he's in there for a four year term. What were people expecting? A group of peasants with torches and pitchforks to storm the White House and string him up on the South lawn??

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I don't think we should just say "Oh well" to corruption. We should pursue it when we can, and we should be ashamed when we can't.

It's one thing to try to minimize corruption and another to say there should be no corruption and when there is it is inexcusable. I mean, please..

The attempt to avoid corruption was the bid system, which has minimal corruption, but is the best system out there, and it is ludicrous to think government jobs have less corruption than a bidding system.

--

And according to Bob Woodward's new book, the President is actually in charge of his cabinet. It seems they follow him rather than the other way around.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh, I dunno, actually living in Chicago and having friends who actually participate in the election process might give me some insight on the local elections.

Well... after living all my life in and around Chicago, taking classes on Chicago Politics in College, knowing Democrats who actually hold office, and knowing the people that helped them get there... I still respond.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
What were people expecting? A group of peasants with torches and pitchforks to storm the White House and string him up on the South lawn??

Keep talking like that and I'll propose.

[Dom Pedro II]

Imran - I wasn't saying government jobs were less corrupt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's the problem with your Lefties. All about high minded ideals without any thought to the consequences. You investigate all claims and we'd still be without President today.

No we wouldn't. If there's no clear winner in the election, Congress gets to choose, and they would have choosen Bush, given they controled both Houses at the time.

The problem I'm talking about is that there's no punishment of the crimes that were committed. People are getting away with screwing the American people over. And there's nothing right now to stop them from doing it again. Jeb and the Florida Republican Party have been thumbing their noses at the courts for years, despite being ordered to reinstate out-of-state felons who've had their rights restored previous to moving to Florida. Despite having to settle with the NAACP, they refused to fix the current 97% inaccurate list before 2003. Since they keep getting away with it, what's to stop them from continuing to try?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If Gore had won his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered at all.

ZING!

[MRT144]

if america wasnt full of idiots florida wouldnt have mattered...

i vote for northern california to secede the nation...

[Dom Pedro II]

I vote for southern California to secede from the Union but only so we can declare war on it and firebomb Los Angeles back to the Stone Age.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Keep talking like that and I'll propose.

LOL.

The alternative to "surviving" would of course be having pisspoor positives, no leverage in Congress, and essentially no influence on governance. I wasn't thinking an angry mob would try to lynch him -- that's strictly for when Dems are in the White House.

[mindseye]

Ned wrote:

This said, I am still amazed that many Democrats cling to the belief that Gore actually won the election but for a Republican Supreme Court. I suspect these same people are unaware that the news media conducted their own recount after the election using all possible standards to count chads. Regardless of the standard chosen, in a statewide recount, Bush won Florida.

This cannot go uncorrected. Ned, are you sure about the results of that study? I assume the study you are referring to is that of the National Opinion Research Center, a study sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, and CNN, among others.

wsws.org offers this concise summary:

The study found that hundreds, if not thousands, of legal votes for Gore had not been counted. These fell into two categories. They included undervotes that, upon examination, were found to be valid under Florida law, i.e., the ballots showed a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." The other category was so-called "overvotes" ¡ªballots that were wrongly rejected because a voter punched or marked a ballot for Gore and also wrote in the Democratic candidate's name, circled it, or made some other mark around or near the candidate's name or party. According to state law these votes were also legal and should have been counted.

The study acknowledged that if all of the undervotes and overvotes in Florida had been examined fairly and objectively and the legal ballots in these categories had been added to the final tally, Gore would have won the election.

The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study "provides strong evidence" that a "clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr. Gore." The New York Times states that the study found "Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."

Go check for yourself if you don't believe it. You can download the tables from the NORC site.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by mindseye

The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study "provides strong evidence" that a "clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr. Gore." The New York Times states that the study found "Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."[/q]

Go check for yourself if you don't believe it. You can download the tables from the NORC site.

Unfortunately for Gore the only people arguing that any recount ordered should be a statewide recount were Republicans, while the Florida State Supreme Court is comprised of Democrats. Gore would not have had enough votes to win if the limited recount (in 3 heavily Democrat counties only) had gone forward. It's ironic that both camps were pushing for a ruling that would have given the race to their opponent.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

SpenceH, if you are illegally denied the vote, for what do you sue? How do you quantify damages?

If the actions were illegal there should be a criminal indictment. In your mind, the fact that there's not means there is a huge conspiracy when the most logical answer is that nothing illegal happened.

It does not matter if there are ethical people within the Florida or Federal DoJ if their bosses refuse to sign off on an investigation. If Ashcroft says "No!" then no one who wants to keep their job is going to start a criminal prosecution.

And you feel that there is not a single person in the Florida or Federal Justice Depts with enough integrity to push the issue?

THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSON found the exact smae problems that the BBC reported. These findings formed the basis of the NAACP lawsuit, not the testimony of people who were denied the vote. And yes, they would have setled if the State of Florida agreed to what the NAACP wanted, which was for the state to stop using that illegal list. Why continue wasting resources the organization can use elsewhere to continue pressing a case the State had already conceded? Do you think a judge would look kindly on having its time wasted to preside over a case in which one of the litigants has conceded to the other side?

THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSON was a joke. As I implied, it was comparable to a meeting of space-abduction claimants. I'm surprised you dont watch more C-span.

Look, I've given you the evidence. It's up to you to actually refute it. Not by slandering people, but with actual facts.

Here is the actual BBC broadcast.

Not only didnt I slander anyone, I didnt commit libel either.

Here are the 'facts' provided amidst what can only be desribed as the worst piece of one sided 'journalism' I think I've ever seen originate from the BBC.

A private Florida company was hired after being the low bid on a public contract to provide a list of voters who were ineligible to vote in Florida by virtue of their being felons.

So where's the link to the Republican party?

Some names on that list were incorrect and they excluded some people from voting. I couldnt find any evidence of how many names were actually proven wrong (as opposed to liberal innuendo which you put forward as fact).

This is from the ACLU website

"According to news reports, the Commission found that blacks were more likely than whites to have their ballots rejected and acknowledged that "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency" plagued the election overall. However, the ACLU of Florida has criticized the report for not going far enough because it found no "conclusive evidence" that state officials intentionally disenfranchised thousands of blacks Hispanic and Haitian voters across the state. "

So even with their psychic powers, that enabled them to determine that whether rejected votes were cast by blacks rather than whites, the commission could find no evidence of wrong-doing.

So where is this illegal activity? Where are your facts?

[-Jrabbit]

This has degenerated into a pathetic recap of an election from 2 years ago. Bush was legally elected, with no more (or fewer) irregularities than any hotly contested election. LET IT GO, PPL!!

On topic:
Let's deal with the present -- a world on the brink of war, economic chaos, and ecological disaster, where our "leader" sees those things as opportunities to advance a business-driven political agenda and ensure continued time on the throne.

Leadership is about having vision and direction, about improvement, and, for a US President IMHO, is also be about making the country -- and the world -- a better place to live for all of us.

Does anyone seriously believe the George W. Bush can be so described?

I'm not saying he's evil. I'm not saying he's stupid.
I'm just saying that "leadership" is not one of his stronger qualities.

Did I underestimate him? No. I've been consistently unsurprised at his actions. I admit that I've been somewhat impressed by him improvement as a public speaker. But that's not leadership.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
This has degenerated into a pathetic recap of an election from 2 years ago. Bush was legally elected, with no more (or fewer) irregularities than any hotly contested election. LET IT GO, PPL!!

On topic:
Let's deal with the present -- a world on the brink of war, economic chaos, and ecological disaster, where our "leader" sees those things as opportunities to advance a business-driven political agenda and ensure continued time on the throne.

Leadership is about having vision and direction, about improvement, and, for a US President IMHO, is also be about making the country -- and the world -- a better place to live for all of us.

Does anyone seriously believe the George W. Bush can be so described?

I'm not saying he's evil. I'm not saying he's stupid.
I'm just saying that "leadership" is not one of his stronger qualities.

Did I underestimate him? No. I've been consistently unsurprised at his actions. I admit that I've been somewhat impressed by him improvement as a public speaker. But that's not leadership.

Back on topic. Great. Did you read the Novak piece, Woodwards book, or have you seen the interviews with Woodward? The topic I was trying to raise was that the view that Bush is not really much of a leader appears to be totally false in the light of his actions toward the leaders of both houses and within his own cabinet.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Leadership is about having vision and direction, about improvement, and, for a US President IMHO, is also be about making the country -- and the world -- a better place to live for all of us.

The first being vastly more important than the second.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Back on topic. Great. Did you read the Novak piece, Woodwards book, or have you seen the interviews with Woodward? The topic I was trying to raise was that the view that Bush is not really much of a leader appears to be totally false in the light of his actions toward the leaders of both houses and within his own cabinet.

Novak yes, Woodward no. I'm pretty skeptical tho. (I'm a PR guy IRL...)

Happy to get this back OT -- a fine thread, SpencerH.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

The study found that hundreds, if not thousands, of legal votes for Gore had not been counted. These fell into two categories. They included undervotes that, upon examination, were found to be valid under Florida law, i.e., the ballots showed a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." The other category was so-called "overvotes" ¡ªballots that were wrongly rejected because a voter punched or marked a ballot for Gore and also wrote in the Democratic candidate's name, circled it, or made some other mark around or near the candidate's name or party. According to state law these votes were also legal and should have been counted. The study acknowledged that if all of the undervotes and overvotes in Florida had been examined fairly and objectively and the legal ballots in these categories had been added to the final tally, Gore would have won the election. The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study "provides strong evidence" that a "clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr. Gore." The New York Times states that the study found "Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."

Go check for yourself if you don't believe it. You can download the tables from the NORC site.

That link you provided does not work.

Sorry, I only vaguely remember the articles. However, to the extent I do recall, the overvotes could not be counted legally because they had too many votes for president. If one only looked at the ballots with one vote, Bush won.

As to "intended to vote," I think you must also take into account the large number of Republicans who went home and did not vote in the Panhandle after the media called the state for Gore.

Actually, the early call of Florida for Gore seemed to make Gore the winner of the election and may have had an influence across the entire West.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm just saying that "leadership" is not one of his stronger qualities.

Actually it is one of his strongest. People on the Hill and in his Cabinet attest to it. And Bob Woodward just wrote about it. You can't be that forceful among your own without being a good leader.

[Chris 62]

I guess it wasn't time after all.

[chequita guevara]

Hey, even a monkey can go where he wants when he's driving a steam roller.

[Chris 62]

Not to bitter, are you Che?

Cheer up, Gore is running in 2004.

That means another 6 years of Bush.

[chequita guevara]

I'm not pro-Gore.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not pro-Gore.

Even after his lurch to the left?