The only thing worse than the candidates this year is the shockingly biased liberal press.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread


Illustration of Camille Paglia


The peevish porcupine beats the shrill rooster
The only thing worse than the candidates this year is the shockingly biased liberal press. Plus: A frankfurter geography of America.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Camille Paglia

Dec. 6, 2000 | As I file this, Al Gore has not yet conceded, but there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon that the rancorous stalemate in the 2000 presidential election might soon be over. While the frame of constitutional government remains unshaken, it has been distressing in the extreme to see what was already a confused, tedious, amateurish and claptrap-filled campaign degenerate into nitpicking legal wrangling, ruthless backbiting, brazen race-baiting and bitter recriminations among American citizens.

Any fair-minded person watching TV in the first two days after the abortive election should have frankly acknowledged that it was the Democrats who first took the low road of mob hysteria and backstage manipulation in Florida. The Republicans countered with an arrogant, presumptuous war mode of their own, but the initial destruction of civility and dignity was not of their making. As a registered Democrat and disillusioned former supporter of Bill Clinton, I voted for Ralph Nader as a protest against the corruption of my party -- which was abundantly on display among amoral Democratic operatives this past month.

This is a long, long editorial. Click here to continue

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), December 06, 2000

Answers

I think Gore's team showed their true colors when they started begging people not to vote for Ralph Nader. This jsut fired up Nader more.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 06, 2000.

A national election this close, with the presidency hanging in the balance, certainly demanded extraordinary postmortem measures. But Gore compromised his credibility from the start by demanding recounts only in heavily Democratic counties that he had already won in a landslide. Many citizens (like myself) would have strongly supported statewide manual recounts, however cumbersome, so that all Florida voters were treated equitably. Gore's divide-and-conquer strategy looked like vintage, ward-heeling dirty tricks.

And Ms Paglia needs to actually do some research WHY Al Gore did just this,,,called the FREAKING LAW. Did she expect him to demand recounts of Republican counties? He is allowed a choice of three and made his decision. Ain't about "dirty tricks", about a talkinghead who does not do her homework and merely checks the wind for her guidance.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 06, 2000.


Here is the Florida Election LAW...http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm? App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=- >2000->Ch0102->Section%20166

Like many, Paglia does not do the most basic checking of facts and merely relies on what is fed to her by the supposedly "liberal media". Forgivable if one is not selling themselves as a Journalist.

Where below is Al Gore trying to do dirty tricks? Steal an election? He has asked (as is his right to ask) for Florida to follow their own LAW. When will the three chosen Florida counties do a full and 100% manual recount? EVER? Miami-Dade?

BUSH should be DEMANDING a recount as much or MORE than Al Gore. Why? cause without it his presidency is hollow. Does this concern him? Course not since he is a mere puppet doing the work of fatcats.

Bush has stalled, fought and certified himself since 2am on November 8th as the President. He looks the process in the face and plans his transition into power. What is BUSH trying to do? Steal the election without the due process of LAW that is what. But is this what the Liberal media is spewing? course not since it AIN'T the Liberal Media it is painted to be. In fact most of it is an infortainment service, no media. Paglia does not do research step UNO should be one's clue. 3 clicks of a mouse and 1 to 5 minutes depending on connection speed, and her entire "editorial" falls into the category of BRAINFART.

102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--

(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.

(2) Such protest shall be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever occurs later.

(3) Before canvassing the returns of the election, the canvassing board shall:

(a) When paper ballots are used, examine the tabulation of the paper ballots cast.

(b) When voting machines are used, examine the counters on the machines of nonprinter machines or the printer-pac on printer machines. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the printer-pac, the counters of such machines or the printer-pac shall be presumed correct.

(c) When electronic or electromechanical equipment is used, the canvassing board shall examine precinct records and election returns. If there is a clerical error, such error shall be corrected by the county canvassing board. If there is a discrepancy which could affect the outcome of an election, the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment.

(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.

(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.

(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.

(8) If the county canvassing board determines the need to verify the tabulation software, the county canvassing board shall request in writing that the Department of State verify the software.

(9) When the Department of State verifies such software, the department shall:

(a) Compare the software used to tabulate the votes with the software filed with the Department of State pursuant to s. 101.5607; and

(b) Check the election parameters.

(10) The Department of State shall respond to the county canvassing board within 3 working days.



-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 06, 2000.


He is allowed a choice of three...

Doc- I'ved not heard this before. Is a candidate allowed to request a recount in *only* three counties? Is that a Florida state law?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.


(We posted at the same time Doc)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.


just so we are clear here...

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.

This has been done and shown there is variations which could affect the outcome of the election. Thus step 2 involves a manual recount in said 3 counties....Miami-Dade said they would NOT bother with a full recount and stand by their 1% sample, of which shows the variance which could affect the outcome of the election. What part of ALL ballots don't they get? So now this election is down to the decision of a handful of greyhaired ladies in Miami? apparently.

Great system heh? NOT, a JOKE is what it is and should be tossed like the ridiculous exercise it is.

We need standarized ballots. Automated counts with paperback-ups. Mail-in voting. And honoring the will of the people by using the Popular Vote.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 06, 2000.


Mail in voting seems to have its own problems. They tried forcing an all absentee vote in my county and they failed.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 06, 2000.

Doc:

You should read before reacting. Paglia did NOT say that Gore did anything illegal. She said it *looked* like a dirty trick. I know many undesirable things are, and ought to be, perfectly legal. But one does not earn a sense of national legitimacy by clearly trying to win on a legal technicality.

By the way, there has been some indication in these various court decisions that these laws you cite so lovingly (when your guy benefits) might indeed violate equal protection provisions and be unconstitutional. So far, this law has not been tested in that respect.

The *basis* for any recount is problematical. On the one hand, we don't want endless recounts for no better reason than the loser of a close election can afford them and hopes to win. On the other hand, as we've seen, lawyers can *always* find *some* "irregularity" that makes a recount look worthwhile. As one of these salon.com law professors said, "Any good lawyer can find ambiguity in a NO SMOKING sign."

Maybe we'll always be in the position where an affluent loser of a close decision need only find a friendly judge who considers even the weakest excuse sufficient grounds for a recount under favorable conditions. Partisanship accomplishes these things every time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 06, 2000.


Flint give it up.

Where is the full recounts of the 3 counties? Where is this a legal technicality? IT IS the statute. Ain't my guy, it is about the Law. Based on a system I feel is BROKE. But being that it is what we have, USE IT.

And where in the hell did I say Paglia said Gore did anything illegal? Go re-read this thread for clues.

Ain't about endless recounts...that is the CRAP the supposedly "liberal"(NWO owned media)has filled your noodle with. Count MIAMI DADE,,,ONCE fully by hand.

again, why isn't Bush asking for an accurate recount? gee I wonder.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 06, 2000.


(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

Does Miami/Dade County have their own law regarding this?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 06, 2000.



Doc, "again, why isn't Bush asking for an accurate recount?" He won.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 06, 2000.

In 1965 William Buckley ran for Mayor of NYC. The reporters asked him, if he should be elected, what's the first thing he would do. He replied, "Demand a recount!"

Doc:

This is a JOKE, because winners don't demand recounts. Why should they?

Now, nobody here is claiming anyone did anything that violated the law in any way. So your pasting the law in large font is beside the point, and misleading (since doing so implies someone DID focus on legality). Once again, Paglia is saying that asking for a recount *known* to be biased is bad PR. A request for a hand recount statewide would give the impression Gore is looking for all the accuracy possible. A request for hand recounts ONLY where he stands to gain LOOKS like he's trying to steal the election using a trick that is technically legal, but smacks of "the will of specific people who tried to vote Democratic but screwed it up" rather than "the will of all the people".

Bush, of course, feels that the counts already done are accurate enough. And we have LOTS of evidence that the rules for what constitutes a vote are NOT being created (and modified) with "accuracy" in mind at all. These rules are being evolved to maximize the number of Gore votes. Even democratic judge Sauls said that these multiple definitions being used in different counties placed them on very shaky legal ground. What he clearly meant was that IF the only way to get enough Gore votes was to use different rules in different counties, this would be unlikely to withstand any legal challenge.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 06, 2000.


Flint,

Gore followed the cited LAW to the LETTER. He has also proposed an entire statewide hand recount to Bush which Bush ignored. Are all the courtcases based on whining Flint? Are you under some delusion Judges merely pass the time listening to WHINING? spend taxpayer monies hearing moaning and bitching based on nothing? Cases go to the front of the US Supreme Court docket based on whining?

Seriously, should Gore have just ignored Palm Beach? Not included it amongst the 3 he could request be fully recounted by hand? Just ignore a legendary butterfly ballot issue well-known by many municipalities throughout this country for being error-prone?

from the article::But Gore compromised his credibility from the start by demanding recounts only in heavily Democratic counties that he had already won in a landslide. Many citizens (like myself) would have strongly supported statewide manual recounts, however cumbersome, so that all Florida voters were treated equitably. Gore's divide-and-conquer strategy looked like vintage, ward-heeling dirty tricks.

Well unfortunately Camille is uniformed and merely playing tapes of what she has been fed like most who never have read the law. There is NO initial statute allowing for a statewide handcount, only 3 counties chosen by the candidate questioning the count. Which to this day, almost a full month later they have not done due to the Bush people stalling the whole thing up in court cases.

All the burdens of the statute have been met. What has not been done is a full hand recount of Miami-Dade(this one I am positive has not been 100% hand recounted). So confusing now, maybe the other two counties as well have never been fully hand-counted, who is to know or cares at this point?

As to the procedures and standards of the recounts, this is left up to the canvassing boards. What is clear is all of this is done in plain view of representatives from both sides. Again, the claims about all the chad crap ignores the fact multiple Republican observers are present to help decide chad status. If they are present, as well as the media, what other standard is needed Flint to satisfy you? If this set-up is bullshit, why do the Republicans even send observers? maybe cause it ain't?

Does anyone anywhere even have any count totals at this date????? What is the current margin between the two? does anyone know? are counts still going on?

What became of the private lawsuits by disgruntled voters? does anyone care? why not?

What about the absentee overseas ballots with no postmarks? does this issue just vaporize if Al stops whining? as it were?

And what good is a FULL RECOUNT based on a system which is set-up to dimish the will of the people in favor of a select few? There in Florida(apparent now see) and the entire Electoral College? Bit late in the game to be asking for a full recount. If one follows that logic Gore has won the election by over 300,000 votes last I saw.

Great system, terrific system, I hope you are all enjoying this massive JOKE. Most ridiculous circus ever and most think this is working? This shows how great we are? We can send a rocket to the Moon and back quicker than this damn election, this is great? Point our finger at Third World Nations and their elections? geesh wake-up America,,,time to ditch the dumbass outdated and CLEARLY ridiculous Electoral College scam.

and if Bush has won, why do they continue? Will Bush have EVER won really no matter what finally spews forth from FL?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 07, 2000.


"By the way, there has been some indication in these various court decisions that these laws you cite so lovingly (when your guy benefits) might indeed violate equal protection provisions and be unconstitutional"

Flint, as you may know, the 11th circuit court of appeals DID rule on this yesterday-and they said the Florida law does not violate equal protection.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 07, 2000.


Doc says: And Ms Paglia needs to actually do some research WHY Al Gore did just this,,,called the FREAKING LAW.... He is allowed a choice of three and made his decision.

But on another thread Doc also says: Hell we should be having a FULL Statewide hand recount by now, why not? This should have been over at least a week ago, minimum with a FULL statewide hand recount, why not?

Why isn't GW Bush DEMANDING a full and accurate RECOUNT? Why has he been fighting the TRUTH since 2am November 8th? If they think he will gain votes in Republican counties which will offset any gains by Gore in Democratic counties, why are they fighting?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because of that FREAKING LAW?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 07, 2000.



Doc:

Paglia is talking about images, about public perceptions, about creating or destroying a sense of legitimacy for the winner. She is NOT talking about the law. And I agree that most people DO understand that trying to win the Presidency on the basis of disputing ONLY those ballots most likely to be Gore ballots, while legal, is a technicality.

You quoted the relevant paragraph yourself. She is concerned because Gore's strategy "looks like" a trick. Not that it IS a trick, nobody is claiming it's of questionable legality here. Only that it LOOKS LIKE a trick, and this is bad PR. Sheesh.

Now, even if Gore had started by demanding a statewide recount (and even if he had legal grounds to do so), it is NOT in Bush's interests to agree. Bush WON! WHY should he agree to a recount that stands a pretty good probability *just at random* that he might lose? Bush's best tactic is to fight AGAINST recounts. He won.

Paglia is saying that Bush's attempts to prevent recounts would garner much less popular support if he were trying to prevent a statewide recount. Trying to prevent a recount narrowly focused where it's likely to do Gore most good, while NOT recounting where Bush might gain, LOOKS unfair. This is a PR battle.

[Does anyone anywhere even have any count totals at this date????? What is the current margin between the two? does anyone know? are counts still going on?]

(1) Yes, these are published. Look at cnn.com, for example. (2) 527 votes. (3) Yes, we all know. (4) No, nobody is counting right now.

[What became of the private lawsuits by disgruntled voters? does anyone care? why not?]

(1) The "butterfly ballot" lawsuit was thrown out. The "absentee ballot" lawsuits are currently being tried in Martin and Seminole counties. (2) Yes, we care. It tells us the "butterfly ballot" complaints were groundless, and the "absentee ballot" cases have at least the potential to pick the President. (3) Why not what? Since we DO care, asking why we don't care is irrelevant. [What about the absentee overseas ballots with no postmarks? does this issue just vaporize if Al stops whining?]

(1) It was decided that those ballots without postmarks would be accepted, since the voters had no control over this. Those without signatures were rejected. (2) Irrelevant. A decision was made with which both sides are happy.

[If one follows that logic Gore has won the election by over 300,000 votes last I saw.]

This reflects a profound misunderstanding of the EC system. Popular vote applies only to states. If we had amended the Constitution to elect the President by national popular vote, then those millions of absentee ballots not part of the 300,000 vote difference would have been counted, since they'd make a critical difference. Since they cannot change the victor of any particular state anymore under the current EC system, they will be counted someday for the record, but there's no hurry.

[and if Bush has won, why do they continue?]

Because Gore has supporters in high places, and LOTS of money.

Syd:

[Flint, as you may know, the 11th circuit court of appeals DID rule on this yesterday-and they said the Florida law does not violate equal protection.]

I admit I'm confused about this. I remember reading a commentator saying that the injunction was denied (rather, the court affirmed the denial of a lower court) on the grounds that Bush won the election, and won all the recounts, and therefore was not an injured party. That the actual constitutional issue (if any) was not involved in the decision. However, when I went to the actual decision and read it, I find the following. On the first page, it says:

"The district court denied Plaintiff's request for prelimiary injunctive relief, and Plaintiffs appeal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm."

OK, I dug through the entire decision, and finally reached the bottom line at the very end:

"Accordingly, granting the requested injunctive relief is the only appropriate remedy."

And indeed, the whole 120 page ruling goes through the whole statistical argument, agreeing that selective recounts where they are intended to preferentially assist one candidate, is indeed a violation of equal protection. The court writes:

"Never once in its briefs or in its oral arguments did the Party suggest that its selection of the 3 punch card counties out of 24 for a manual recount was based on anything other than partisan self- interest. That the Democratic Party predictably acted in its own best interests in using the state recount machinery to insure that intended votes which would otherwise be disregarded would only be counted in counties favoring its candidate does not end the issue. There is the matter of the Constitution"

The decision then goes into great detail about how the Constitution's equal protection overrides and therefore FORBIDS this kind of selective recounting. They write:

"If Florida enacted a manual recount procedure for correcting the undervote caused by using the punch card voting system, but provided that the corrective procedure could be invoked only in the 3 most populous counties of the state, no one would question that such a provision would be unconstitutional...there is unconstitutional discrimination against the voters in the punch card counties not selected for manual recounts."

Now, I'm not a lawyer. This is Siegel vs. Lepore, and it sounds like the court affirms the DENIAL of the injunction, and then spends 120 pages explaining why it GRANTS an injunction. In the process, it makes the point over and over how and why selective recounts violate the Constitution and cannot be permitted. Yet no injunction is granted, and the recounts go on (or are allowed to stand).

If you can find *anything* in this decision saying selective recounts are constitutional, I'd appreciate it. From my layman's reading, this court spent 120 pages justifying in great detail the OPPOSITE of the decision they handed down. Why? Is it possible that I'm reading a dissenting opinion but missed such an indication?

Here's what I'm reading:

http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/1d/www.cnn.com/LAW/library/documents /election.florida/siegel.11c.pdf

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 07, 2000.


Unk, read said LAW. If we indeed would have had the full 3 hand recounts, we could now have a full statewide hand-count if the Florida election gurus felt the errors could effect the outcome. From the counts seen, and the samples, yes indeed I think there exists more than enough evidence to demand a full statewide recount.

BTW Unk, it does not mattter to me or you if Daffy Duck is in the WhiteHouse as you well know.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 07, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ