NEWSWEEK’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GOREgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread |
© 2000
"THE ATTACKS ON BUSH WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY VICIOUS"
NEWSWEEK’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORENewsweek Washington bureau reporter and MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman let it slip out this morning: The liberal media’s double standard is benefiting Al Gore as the Democrat tries desperately to spin his way from defeat to victory.
Fineman was a guest this morning on radio’s Imus in the Morning, simulcast on MSNBC, when host Don Imus asked the question that most liberal reporters dread: What if the roles were reversed?
"What if Gore had won and Bush, what if the roles were reversed," Imus wondered. "How would, I wouldn’t want to include you in this, but how would the liberal weenies of the news media be treating this if the roles were reversed?"
"Oh, my God. Are you kidding?" Fineman truthfully replied. "That George Bush was a crybaby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed President. You know, you could just hear, the personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious."
But, as Fineman knows, the networks aren’t calling Gore a crybaby or subjecting him to vicious personal attacks. Monday, all of the broadcast networks interrupted prime time to carry Gore’s plea for patience; Sunday, NBC refused to give the certified winner, George W. Bush, a similar chance to speak live and unedited to the entire country.
Instead, in the Eastern and Central time zones, NBC showed Titanic, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. For those who missed the movie so they could watch the finale of this historic election: the ship sank.
To speak with an MRC spokesperson regarding the media’s coverage of Campaign 2000, call Katie Wright at (703) 683-5004.
-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000
Well, Bob, let me ask you something. Can you conceive of Al Gore demanding that legitimate votes that could not be read by a mechanical scanner, not be counted?Cut out all the damn spin, and I mean all of it, and that is exactly what Bush has demanded.
Absentee ballots fall under a different standard of proof, because YOU ARE FILLING THEM OUT ON THE HONOR SYSTEM. Hell, they have absentee ballots mailed from the city zoo, 200 of em', with names like Jack Ass and Ellie Phant. Think that would have gotten past the ID check at a voting station?
The entire Florida election law is on the web. Go look it up, and tell us what it says about spoiled ballots.
And if Gore was standing around yelling "I know I won if we don't count this pile of ballots over here that meet state requirements but I don't want them counted and I'll bus in a couple hundred of my parties congressional staffers to kick you around if you don't play ball my way", then I'd tell him to stuff a sock in it.
Have you bothered to consider what you've lost here? You've lost that claim to always support local decisions, you've lost the moral high ground on protests, you've lost the 'obey the law' mantra for Republicans, you've lost any claim that Republicans believe in the rule of law over force, in fact, you've lost a helluva lot.
Republicans are going to look back on this with great rue before the end of next year. Many of your party's faithful will become disenchanted after these actions, when they've had time to cool down. Attacking the president is one thing, attacking vote counters is something else again.
And in a Jewish community, to boot! Man, you guys have the TV stations, no doubt about that, but Jews are heavily represented in Hollywood, and they will GUT you with the movies about this. Bet on a few movies about Kristalnacht coming out soon, too. Wonder what Speilburg is working on?
Don't Republicans even bother to THINK anymore? Or just react?
-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000
Paul,Sheesh, calm down. There ARE two sides to this issue.
Can you conceive of Al Gore demanding that legitimate votes that could not be read by a mechanical scanner, not be counted?
No, I can't, and just for the record, Bush didn't do that, either. That's Democratic spin that, as usual, ignores the rule of law if it's inconvenient.
It's long since past time for the record to be set straight on this.
One of the grandest conservative principles of all is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. People who vote should take time to read the instructions and follow them. They have the right to ask for help if they need it. As I've said elsewhere, I've watched elections being planned and executed from the gitgo and that's how it works. I've seen precinct workers go into the booth and help illiterate people, the elderly, ANYONE who needed assistance.
BUT ... if you don't follow instructions, and don't ask for help, it's you're own fault if the vote isn't recorded properly. Paul, that's the LAW. Someone's motivation in asking that the LAW be applied is utterly irrelevant. Whether they're doing so for personal gain is irrelevant. It's the LAW, and should be followed.
The voters who were using these punch ballots should have read the CLEAR instructions or asked for help. The instructions PLAINLY said to check that the vote was properly marked; that there were no hanging chads or double-punches. If the voter had ANY questions, he/she could ask help. If it was determined that the ballot had been wrongly marked, he/she could ask for a replacement ballot.
So ... if George W. Bush wants to throw out *ALL* questionable ballots, guess what? He's got the *LAW* on HIS side. Not Gore.
Further, spoiled ballots are placed in a separate pile. These ballots CANNOT be counted; they cannot be added to anyone's total -- Gore's, Bush's, Nader's, or anyone else's. That's ALSO the law.
What I've been watching on TV is a masterpiece of disinformation on the part of the Gore campaign. The above is just one example of many. The Democrats are trying masterfully to convince people that there are *valid* votes down in Florida which haven't been counted. That's a flat lie.
(The key word, once again, is "valid." VALID. Votes which were executed according to posted and published instructions are VALID. Those which weren't, weren't valid.)
Paul, there are rules and laws about how elections are to be conducted. One of those rules is that double-marked (whether by pencil, punching, whatever) ballots CANNOT be counted. Gore's team insists that they SHOULD be counted. That's flat WRONG.
They CANNOT be counted, or you open up a Pandora's box. Bush's real complaint, which, unlike many Democrats, I apparently had no trouble understanding the first time he made it, is that you cannot have a recount without standards. If he were to agree to these recounts -- whether statewide or not -- he would be playing right into Gore's hands, and he knows it.
His opponents have called him dumb. He looks pretty sharp to me, not taking sucker bait like that. :)
-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000
This article only goes to show how far news reporters have strayed from reporting the news. Fineman seems to think it is their role to comment on the news, not report it.
-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000
Fineman seems to think that if his opinion is requested, he should honestly state his opinion. He does so. Had he been asked for the strict facts, he probably would have presented those.Brian, you are spouting opinion on this forum, and you are a technical writer by trade. Should I therefore conclude that your technical writing is composed of opinion? Should I decide that as a tech writer, you should not be *allowed* to state opinions? Or does that prohibition apply only to other writers?
-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000
Stephen, yesterday I finally found a number I had been searching for.Seminole County, heavily Republican, hand counted votes before anyone else. Remove those 417 extra hand counted votes for Bush, and Gore seems to squeak ahead - I'm not 100% sure, because they don't seem to want to give an exact breakdown, or tell how many votes, if any, Gore got from that hand count, but, OK, lets go that route.
SO, let us have no hand counts whatsoever, go solely by the MACHINE RECOUNT ONLY, and let the chips fall.
-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000
Paul,There already HAVE been machine recounts, and Bush won. Why is another needed?
-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000
Stephen, I'm talking about fair, not about law.One candidate is allowed hand recounts in Republican counties. One isn't allowed hand recounts in Democratic counties.
To be fair, both should release gains from hand recounts.
But, Gore would win.
Ok, the process isn't fair. But perhaps you can see why I don't care much for all the protestations of "it was fair".
And I don't like hearing the "Bush won the machine recount". I'm pretty sure he didn't. He won the machine recount, with hand recount votes from Republican counties added.
I think, if you were on the short end of this stick, like Gore is, you'd be fighing, too.
Because, it was not.
-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000
Paul,There CAN'T be a statewide machine recount, because not all precincts use machines!
And again, I have to squarely contend with the issue that hand recounts are more accurate, anyway. There are two reasons why precincts go to machine voting: (1), it's faster and (2) it's more accurate -- *WHEN* voters follow the instructions, as mentioned above.
IF every voter would read and follow the instructions, there would be no problem.
Which is why I said that this really is a matter of personal responsibility. If you don't register properly, you can't vote. If you don't fill the ballot out correctly, your vote doesn't count.
That's how it has always worked -- until now, of course.
And it's time for my Supreme Court prediction. I think they're going to stun the Democrats, and Gore in particular. I'm not sure precisely what form the decision will take, but there you go, anyway. :)
-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000
I got to start at the bottom and learn my way up. Ever use one of those humongous punch card machines?KaaPLUNK KaaPLUNK.
Memories....
Anywho... we used to use those ballots with chads. Not in the last 4 years though, thank goodness, and the ones left in the state will gone by the next election.
Why are only the first group of chads the ones with problems and the rest have progressively less problems?
Simple, the first ones are the ones that are always used in every election, whether it is a year like this with the president being picked along with countless others, and measures and propositions and laws to be voted on, or a special election where one issue is at stake.
That is why those are the questionable punches.
They get all the use, they are the ones which have the greater breakdown of the plastic, or whatever they were talking about under the first row.
Also, where do the chads go when punched? After so many are punched out do they fill up a reservoir making it impossible for the newer ballots to get punched through, causing dimpled and pregnant chads?
Maybe it wasn't weak seniors unable to punch a little chad out with ease as people on TV do when they hold it up with nothing under it, maybe it was because there were so many more punches under the Gore ballots that they were filled sooner than the Bush buckets and under the other chad reservoirs.
Maybe Bush didn't have as many punched chads under them so there was little or no problem punching through them.
Technical difficulties. Physics? Gore had more pregnant and dimpled chads because so many more "embedded" chads were under the ballots?
-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000
So ... if George W. Bush wants to throw out *ALL* questionable ballots, guess what? He's got the *LAW* on HIS side. Not Gore.No. He does not have the law on his side. The Florida election law is quite clear on how questionable ballots are handled, and quite clear of the chain of command. The local canvassing commission needs to look at them, and then, as now, if it is contested, a circuit court judge is empowered to make decisions about voter intent.
It is disingenius to say on the one hand that one should follow the"law" in florida regarding deadlines, and then on the other hand to say that there are no standards for judges or canvassing boards to make decisions on the ballot. The law clearly states that these folks make decisions about intent. If the Florida Legislature felt the need to make standards, they would have done so.
But it is not convenient for republican pundits to look at THIS letter of the law-for better or worse, canvassing boards and judges have been given the authority to determine voter intent.
-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000
FutureShock:I have this strong feeling that if the situation were reversed and YOUR candidate had won, your respect for the law would suddenly blossom like the Miracle of Springtime! In THAT case, you'd be darkly suspicious of those who decide the law needs to be interpreted to mean whatever the loser NEEDS it to mean.
-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000
Flint:You underestimate me. My friends think I should have been a lawyer or a cop. I have done myself the service of reading every brief in every case down in Florida. I have formed my opinion based on my reading of those briefs and my understanding of case law. I have not relied on talking heads to tell me what to think-as so much of America has done.
If I were on the other side, that would not change my opinion of the law.
Judicial review, as so eloquently addressed in Marbury vs. Madison, is an integral part of the rule of law. Because a state supreme court makes a ruling, and constructs a remedy because statutes conflicted, does not mean a new "rule" was created. There is abundant case history of many state courts who fashioned such remedies. Do yourself a favor. Go to the site for the U.S. Supreme court and read the Amicus bried of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is brilliant, and is a very insightful argument.
-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000
FS:No, I'm not underestimating you, you are overestimating yourself. Consider that the political parties have engaged the finest and best- trained, most informed legal minds in the country, ALL of whom are of the carefully considered opinion that the Florida laws support whomever engaged their services.
Do you think this is coincidence? Do you think the Bush team's lawyers are committing professional suicide by putting forth interpretations that are "obviously" wrong to anyone who has done as much legal research as you have? Do you think you were *just lucky* that all your homework has led you to the same opinion you had when you started it?
[I have formed my opinion based on my reading of those briefs and my understanding of case law.]
Uh, I hate to differ with someone of your erudition, but you were a flag-waving, card-carrying democrat before you read your first brief or reviewed your first case. You campaigned actively on the forum for Gore during the national campaign.
And now you are just like the lawyers fighting these political battles in all these various courts -- you have bent your research efforts toward gathering *ammunition* to support your preferences. This is fine, and exactly what legal research is *intended* to do. But by observation, your preferences came first.
And so I said that, if you were a Bush supporter, all of your research would have served the same (and proper) purpose -- to argue the rightness of Bush's cause with much more knowledge and legal background. Those lawyers currently arguing *both* sides aren't half angels and half scoundrels, you know. Every one of them is sincerely building a case for preferences that came first, just like you are. The difference is, they can admit it.
-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000
>> Every one of them is sincerely building a case for preferences that came first, just like you are. <<And you are...?
>> The difference is, they can admit it. <<
Adding the words "and as I am" immediately after the words "just like you are" would have involved eleven keystrokes. Yet, you did not add them. What does this say about you?
-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000
Brian:C'mon now. Unlike FS and (to some degree) you, I am not pretending to be nonpartisan, to stand "above it all" disinterestedly and objectively noting that the Bush campaign can do no right and the Gore campaign no wrong!
I don't mind stating that I favor Bush, and I'm willing to roll up my sleeves, wade in and do battle here. I won't claim that my facts aren't carefully selected and interpreted in my favor, because they are. And I'll jump in when I see you or FS or Paul Davis or anyone else claiming that THEIR carefully selected facts and interpretations are a balanced presentation of reality, which just fortuitously happens to favor their preferred candidate!
This is a partisan, adversary proceeding, and anyone claiming neutrality is lying, perhaps even to themselves.
-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000