Vote Fraud, and Voter Fraud, in Miami-Dade

Jack Thompson Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2000

According to an interview on Bob Dornan's coast-to-coast radio show just now finished, the news weekly Human Events is about to run with a story under reporter John Gizzy's byline stating the real reason, according to investigative work by Gizzy, the hand recount of computer punch card ballots was stopped the day before Thanksgiving.

It was not, according to Gizzy, the protests or the lack of time. It was fear of Democrat vote fraud in Florida's most populous county.

Specifically, the canvassing board, headed by David Leahy, knew of 5,000 illegal ballots cast by Haitians who are not citizens of this country and thus cannot vote. Such votes would be expected to have been cast overwhelmingly for Gore-Lieberman.

Three weeks ago this reporter, appearing on CNN to debate Alan Dershowitz, suggested to the Harvard professor that if Gore persisted in trying to win this election in a courtroom, it would eventually come out that Democrat vote fraud was engaged in, it was most likely in South Florida (specifically Miami-Dade), and that it would prove an embarrassment to Team Gore.

Vote Fraud, and Voter Fraud, in Miami-Dade

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), November 29, 2000

Answers

It was fear of Democrat vote fraud in Florida's most populous county. That's the POT calling the KETTLE black.

They just knew votes that had been cast were illegal. So they took it upon themselves to make sure those votes did not count, right? Geeze, real patriotic of them to manipulate the outcome of the election like that.

Amazing spin there......

Bush went AWOL and if he gets in he will be impeached!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 29, 2000.

Cherri,

AWOL? Let's see the paperwork that charged him with going AWOL.

Who is going to impeach him? The Democrats? Hint: get out your little calculator and count up how many Democrats their are in the House. Answer: not enough. You are delusional.



Nice exclamation point. There is some spittle in the left corner of your mouth. You should wipe it off.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 29, 2000.

Cherri, I think you have it wrong. Bush went to AOL, which in itself should be a crime, but under the current legal system it is legal to pay for an isp that is overpriced and treats its clients like idiots.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), November 29, 2000.

Hey "J"-

Since Cheri is delusional in thinking that Bush will get impeached because there aren't enough people in congress who will vote that way, does that mean YOU were delusional when you said all your pet issues would get passed for the next two years? After all, there aren't enough people who will vote that way, either.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 30, 2000.

Tarzan,

I am not delusional at all. Unlike you and Cherri, I understand the concept of, "more than half". You see, where a vote is decided by the MAJORITY, having "more than half" on your team means quite a bit. You can feel free to keep pretending that it doesn't matter. That should make you feel better.

By the way, before someone comes screaming into this thread saying that the Senate is 50/50, please understand that IF it ends up 50/50, the V.P. (that would be Cheney) gets to break ties in the Senate.

I would even go so far as to say that the longer the loser drags his feet, the greater the Republican resolve becomes.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 30, 2000.

Then J, surely you agree that, of the people who voted, Gore got "more than half the votes" cast.

:-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 30, 2000.

That would be "nationwide". Sorry.....

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 30, 2000.

OK Pat, just trying to be helpful here - don't take this as name calling but...

Gore didn't get more than half the votes cast. Some of those went to Nader and a few other candidates (now I can't even remember their names). True he did get more than Bush but it still isn't more than 50%; I believe the number was 49%. :D

On the article: I don't think this was just cause in stopping the recount. I agree with Cherri on her point but not on her impeachment statement. Cherri, you need a little more justification than someone somewhere doctored some documents but I can't find the person who did that and this Col believes Bush went AWOL but is too chicken to come right out and say it because he could be held accountable.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 30, 2000.

I am not delusional at all. Unlike you and Cherri, I understand the concept of, "more than half". You see, where a vote is decided by the MAJORITY, having "more than half" on your team means quite a bit. You can feel free to keep pretending that it doesn't matter. That should make you feel better.

Actually, it is only the politically naive who believe that all members of a party will vote the same way on a given issue. Remember the last time we discussed this? I produced several key Republican issues that failed to get unified Republican support. The Republicans have only a 13 seat majority, yet on those key issues, considerably more than 13 voted against their own party.

By the way, before someone comes screaming into this thread saying that the Senate is 50/50, please understand that IF it ends up 50/50, the V.P. (that would be Cheney) gets to break ties in the Senate.

The Senate, like the House, will rarely, if ever, be 50/50 on any issue because (and I'll say this slowly for your benefit, "J") members... of... each... party... do... not... all... vote... the... same... way.

If anything, we will see massive logjams in congress, which is usually a good thing for business and the nation as a whole.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (taran@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 30, 2000.

Patricia,

No, as Maria said, he got a pleurality, at best. Also, the Presidential race is not decided by a majority of the popular vote.



Tarzan,

Yada, yada, yada. There is a great difference between not getting full Republican support for an issue when there is a Democrat President standing ready to veto the bill anyway, and rallying the party to pass key legislation that the party leaders in both the Whitehouse and the Congress want.

No comment on Gore's antics galvanizing the Republican party? Truth hurts, doesn't it?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 30, 2000.

"Specifically, the canvassing board, headed by David Leahy, knew of 5,000 illegal ballots cast by Haitians who are not citizens of this country and thus cannot vote"

Shades of Y2k. They "knew" somebody who heard from somebody that somebody saw somebody do something that was "illegal". Believe me, if there were EVIDENCE(a word that so many republican radicals seem to be unfamiliar with) of vote fraud of this kind, the Bush team would have filed suit. Allegations are more prevalent than Elizabeth Taylor marriages in this post election environment.

Too often these allegations are passed off as truth(remember Y2K-I am sure you do). It is laughable that we keep getting these cut and pastes from the republican boy who cries wolf, and none of them seem to contain "facts" that have been independently verified.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 30, 2000.

Yada, yada, yada. There is a great difference between not getting full Republican support for an issue when there is a Democrat President standing ready to veto the bill anyway, and rallying the party to pass key legislation that the party leaders in both the Whitehouse and the Congress want.

*sigh* The Republican party was so galvanized over Clinton that they pushed for, and got, an impeachment trial. Moreover, every time Clinton vetoed Republican sponsored legislation, they used it to trumpet how venal and corrupt he is, in order to garner public sympathy points. It's the same tactic they used to sweep the house in 1994. It's a common political tactic that is in no way limited to the GOP. The fact that you, apparently, have missed it speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues.

Once more, Republican legislators are not mindless automatons who vote the party line as a reflex. There is a world of difference between the way Bob Barr and Johnny Isakson vote, though both are Repubs from neighboring districts in the same state. I have no idea why you keep insisting that all elected officials of a given party will vote the same way on a given issue.

No comment on Gore's antics galvanizing the Republican party? Truth hurts, doesn't it?

If their collective hatred of Clinton couldn't galvanize every Republican into voting for impeachment (or even a PBA ban), why would Gore have a stronger effect? Even with the election nonsense, he hasn't pulled nearly the amount of shenanigans Clinton has.

Your argument hinges on three things: one, that all Republicans will vote the same way on an issue given the possibility of success, two, that Republicans feared a Clinton veto so much that they voted against their party and their conscience, and three, that they will despise Gore so much more than Clinton that instead of fearing his veto, they will be galvanized against it.

Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Men and women that feared Clinton's veto so much they voted AGAINST a ban on PBA will suddenly get a spine, overcome their veto fears and vote their conscience (assuming they secretly agree with the ban in the first place) in the face of a Gore veto?

And this is somehow more likely than some Republicans being less conservative than others?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 30, 2000.

"Men and women that feared Clinton..."

I like the way you put that. Fear of the Clinton wrath drove the voting process in Congress.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 30, 2000.

Actually, Maria, that's "J"'s argument. Repbulicans didn't all vote for traditionally Republican issues sponsored by Repbulicans because they knew it wouldn't survive a veto, so instead they voted against their own party.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 30, 2000.

Tarzan,

My argument does not hinge on three things, but nice try for trying to frame it the way you want it. LOL.

Eight Republican representatives voted against the partial birth abortion ban, one additional representative abstained. It seems that this would be enough to nullify the slim thirteen seat majority that the Republicans hold in the House. Except that 77 Democrats knew murder when they saw it, and voted for the ban.

Your argument holds no water, because for the Democrats to stop Republican legislation, they must have the complete unity that you say is impossible for a party to have. Are only the Republicans incapable of staying to the party line? LOL.

No more Clinton veto = no more partial birth abortion. Deal with it.

As far as your "in the face of a Gore veto" comment, you really are delusional if you think that Al Gore is somehow going to become President. I was stating that his antics as a crybaby sore loser are helping to unite the Republican party as we speak. His antics are also helping to cause division in the Democrat party, or haven't you noticed? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 30, 2000.

I know I'm stepping into a real hornet's nest here but here goes.

I thought you were the first to mention the word fear. Maybe you guys battled this one on another thread but I was commenting on that word, fear. And not so much fear of veto (we all know Clinton liked to do that with repubs bills) but fear of wrath (my word to complete the thought along the fear lines). Clinton was a very formidable political opponent and had a drive to beat his enemies. Not so much beat but actually drive into the ground (my take on his methods).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 30, 2000.

According to the Congressional Record, it was 23 Republicans who voted against the PBA ban. Even if was only eight with one abstention, you have proven my point, that NOT ALL REPUBLICANS VOTE THE SAME ON ALL ISSUES. Sorry to shout, but your skull must be especially thick today.

No more Clinton veto = no more partial birth abortion.

Not true. The SCOTUS already struck down a Nebraska law which would have all but eliminated PBA. The SCOTUS found that such a law was an undue burden on a woman.

As far as your "in the face of a Gore veto" comment, you really are delusional if you think that Al Gore is somehow going to become President.

Actually, I don't believe that Gore will become prez, I thought you were throwing out the possibility for discussion purposes.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 30, 2000.

Maria-

If members of Congress were truly afraid of Clinton's wrath, they would not have voted for impeachment.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithtouta.net), November 30, 2000.

Tarzan:

It may sound ridiculous, but in the US this is the typical case. Compared with the British Parliament, our legislative voting is haphazard as all hell, whereas there a vote *against* the party line is a very rare event. Here, we have very few "litmus votes" where party affiliation becomes the overriding factor. Most votes are instead consituency driven, and the position of the party does NOT override a contrary preference by one's state or district.

So we have what's called porkbarrel, and this is a major impediment to strict party line voting. The Republicans might be in favor of reducing taxes and shrinking government, but a smart Republican representative knows how to vote if the government money will be spent in his district.He knows that no matter HOW conservative his constituents, if he wants to keep his job he damn well better vote to spend that money.

We also have regional differences, so that a "republican" from, say, Massachusetts will often be WAY left of a "democrat" from Nebraska, and "republicans" from large cities are left of "democrats" from the sticks. Party leadership recognizes these realities, and very rarely cracks the whip that hard on party loyalty -- *especially* when a veto looms anyway, so the *actual* vote is moot, but the impression made on the voters back home is very real.

Selection of the president, however, is a litmus vote if there ever was one. Why would a legislator NOT vote as his constutuency did?

Footnote: In general I favor the republicans because they seem to understand better than the democrats that if we as a society reward success and productivity, that's what we tend to get. If we reward failure and neediness, then *that's* what we tend to get. So it's embarrassing to find myself lumped in with religious fanatics who favor the republicans because they are more likely to deprive me of rights in accordance with the dogma of someone else's church.

Why can't these religious nutballs go off and form the Theocratic Oppression Party, rather than polluting a perfectly good party with this idiocy?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 30, 2000.

Flint-

My point exactly. You can't count on someone to vote a single way on a given issue based on party affiliation. J is the one who is trying to argue that the GOP vote in monolithic blocks, or will, once there's a new president in the White House.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 30, 2000.

"Not gonna do it... not prudent"

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 30, 2000.

...."The Senate, like the House, will rarely, if ever, be 50/50 on any issue because (and I'll say this slowly for your benefit, "J") members... of... each... party... do... not... all... vote... the... same... way. " Hells bells....they don't even all vote, let alone the same way!!

-- Taz (Tassie@RuralFlorida.com), November 30, 2000.

Why can't these religious nutballs go off and form the Theocratic Oppression Party, rather than polluting a perfectly good party with this idiocy?

Because then the Republicans would become the new Libertarians. All of the issues with which I dis-agree with the Republicans have an overt, or subtle, religious moral bent to them. Porn, drugs, go on down the list and count them. The Dems are guilty of it too, but if you can wrap an issue up in family values and morality, the Republicans will sing it from the highest rafters.

What amazes me is that the Republicans can say with a straight face that tobbacco use is a choice, but pot smoking is evil. The real thinking behind that is that pot smoking is evil because people derive pleasure from it, thus it is sinful. They will not admit that, but I am positive that is how they frame it in their minds, even if they are unaware of it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 30, 2000.

Still, I wish "Ain't" (and everyone else) would at least make a little effort to remember that "it's" is a contraction for "it is", so this thread is entitled "The real reason Miami-Dade abandoned it is recount".

Now, granted this one requires memorizing, and is perhaps less irritating than people running around sticking apostrophes into every plural they can find. But I will say these errors don't follow party lines. Maybe "Ain't" doesn't favor Bush because he's smart or educated, but rather because he's a religious idiot? That might explain the literacy challenges.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 30, 2000.