So This Is Compassionate Conservatism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

So This Is Compassionate Conservatism?

by Dave Zweifel

Whatever happened to those compassionate conservatives we heard so much about earlier this year.

Obviously, the George W. Bush pre-election charade was just that, a charade. There isn't a compassionate soul among the cadre of lawyers and politicians that Bush has assembled to declare the 2000 presidential election his.

You would think that since a quarter million more Americans voted for the other guy they might display a smidgen of humility, but not these people.

First comes the arrogant James Baker, the former secretary of state and the very symbol of the Papa Bush administration's aloofness and constant catering to the right wing.

"We won,'' he insists, so all you Gore people get your carcasses out of here, and let us form the new administration.

Then comes the governor of Montana, whose idea of solving this stalemate is to accuse the Gore people of fraud, deceit, cheating and every other synonym of those words. One can't help but think that perhaps this guy, Marc Racicot, would be better off figuring out why his state keeps burning to a crisp each summer.

And how about Karl Rove, the political strategist who used to work with the late Lee Atwater devising right-wing schemes for the Christian Coalition and its allies? Rove is another of the George W. spokespeople to accuse the Democrats of trying to "steal'' the Florida vote.

What we've been seeing, of course, is the kind of administration that Bush will form should he eventually be declared the winner in Florida. There won't be a compassionate soul among them.

Anyone with any compassion -- Democrat or Republican -- ought to be working to solve this dilemma as fairly as humanly possible. Compassionate people ought to be concerned why several thousand people went to the polls and didn't get their votes counted. They ought to be concerned whether some of the election machinery worked correctly and, yes, they ought to be concerned why so many military ballots were thrown out.

Accusations that one side is trying to cheat in the face of the most watched election counting in the history of America do nothing but make an already tense situation worse.

Americans have made it clear they are willing to wait for the results. Do the recount fairly, make as many votes count as possible, and then declare the winner. The loser should then graciously concede and go about his business.

Meanwhile, perhaps the state of Florida ought to quit acting as America's tax haven for the rich and enact an income tax so they just might have enough money to buy some modern voting machines.

This is what happens when you try to run on the cheap all the time.

-- It's (Falling@Apart.com), November 24, 2000

Answers

"Compassionate people ought to be concerned why several thousand people went to the polls and didn't get their votes counted." Which several thousand do you mean? The ones too stupid to see arrows by a candidate's name and punch a hole? The ones too stupid to review the ballots two weeks before the election? Yes, I do have compassion for these voters and at the same time hope that we all learn from their mistakes.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 24, 2000.

Marc Racicot, would be better off figuring out why his state keeps burning to a crisp each summer.

I am somewhat amused by the fact that Racicot has been given a major role by Bush. It is often said that if California was a separate country it would possess one of the largest economies in the world [the x-largest economy, where I don't remember the number for x]. In contrast, a letter to the editor in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle today started; after 12 years of Republican control, Montana now has the economic status of a 3rd world country [the numbers bear this out]. All of the young people have to leave to find a job with reasonable pay. I would link you but their server is down.

I know that this is the kind of person that I would give responsibility to. Or not.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 24, 2000.


Which several thousand do you mean?

We may as well throw in the several thousand black voters who were instructed to vote on EVERY page of their ballots causing them to inadvertently vote for TWO presidential candidates and have their votes disqualified.

-- What (A@Mess.com), November 24, 2000.


MONEY TALKS------JUSTICE WALKS

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), November 24, 2000.

Maria writes, "Which several thousand do you mean? The ones too stupid to see arrows by a candidate's name and punch a hole?" Then she goes on to assert she has "compassion" for these "stupid" voters. Rank with hypocrisy, and said like a true conservative.

Well, let's look at who's stupid, Maria. We all know how "smart" you are for claiming untrue numbers are true because you "saw it on TV." Even in the face of facts, you cling to your laughable convictions.

Now you accuse voters of being "stupid" because of machine error. This is for YOU, stupid, soulless Maria, and your moron Republican friends:

...A common Republican theme of blaming individual voters for everything "fishy in Florida is mindlessly echoed through almost all of the corporate media [and their parroting supporters]. But it's not the voters, it's the system, stupid! In this case, the voting system clogs & prevents a normal punch from registering an unambiguous vote. A mere mortal explains it all for the benefit of pundits everywhere.

I heard a State Senator interviewed by Brian Williams explain what happened to him in his manual recount in Texas - a Republican! But no one is discussing this reason for the dimpled chad and it is not being considered by the election boards:

My letters to all the papers and TV shows:

Another reason for the pregnant chad: When a chad that is punched out does not fall through to the collection bin but gets lodged in the chute, other chads build up behind it until the chad from the ballot is no longer getting punched out. It becomes indented by the stylus until someone with some strong voting body english pushes the build up down into the collection box. This is a voting machine error as the chad build up is caused, not by the voter, but by an inherent defect in the design of the machinery.

This was explained by a REPUBLICAN State senator from Texas, who won because of the Texas law.

Think about using a hole punch. After you have punched a lot of holes, the paper builds up in the hole punch and you aren't able to punch properly until you clear the stack of undiscarded, punched out paper rounds. The same holds for the chads.

Do we know how many thousands of people only voted for President and not for the other candidates? If the chad build-up occurred in the presidential column, it may have impacted only that race. So the other races would have punched cleanly by subsequent voters."

-- Maria again xposed for stupidity (moronic@gop.com), November 24, 2000.



Think about using a hole punch. After you have punched a lot of holes, the paper builds up in the hole punch and you aren't able to punch properly until you clear the stack of undiscarded, punched out paper rounds. The same holds for the chads.

Chad removal [or lack of] may, indeed have accounted for the inability to punch a hole through a ballot, but I suspect they pile up in ONE box behind the voting machine. I got the impression from your post that you thought there was a box for each race.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ