In Florida, to win the presidency, the Republican Party betrayed what its intellectual spokespeople allege are among conservatism's highest ideals.

To discredit the manual recounting process that they feared would result in the election of Al Gore, Republican representatives like Jim Baker propagated, in effect, the doctrine that human beings are incapable of being fair and objective in their interpretations of reality.

To discredit judicial decisions that went (or simply might go) against their interests, they propagated, in effect, the doctrine that law does not have even a dimension of neutrality or disinterestedness but is from beginning to end an exercise of raw political power in disguise.

Both of these are doctrines that their intellectual spokespeople like Lynne Cheney claim to oppose and despise--doctrines that according to her, are nothing less than "an assault on Western Civilization." And, to compound the moral dilemma they were creating for themselves and their movement, these representatives proceeded to conduct themselves in ways that lent support to the validity of these same cynical, anticonservative doctrines.

A party that for a long time has professed adherence to principles of states' rights and judicial restraint played federal judicial intervention as its trump card to insure the election of its candidate.

Will it ever be possible, in our generation anyway, to take its intellectual pronouncements seriously again?

-- and hypocritcal to boot (read@this.com), March 25, 2001

Answers

I wonder if your copy and paste job was copyrighted, or if the author was so embarrased by his/her "logic" that they "forgot" to attatch their name to this literary masterpiece.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 25, 2001.

I wonder if you realize how jealous and peeved you sound when you talk about "copyright" and "cut and paste." I wonder if you can see how foolish you appear to focus on superficial issues instead of the gist of this short essay, and the truth behind it. I wonder if you ought not to join some kind of secret police force and begin to stamp your narrow disapproval on anything that irks you because it is true.

"Herr Oberman!! Someone has posted zie new essay about our belowed criminal Party. It's true, but it's not compyrighted! Looks like a cut and paste job! No matter vat ideas it expresses -- I'm angry at zis affront!"

-- Join some police force (don't@address.ideas), March 25, 2001.

I have the same words for Ain't when he copy and pastes equally ridiculous articles.

If I join this police force will they issue me a gun?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 25, 2001.

Okay, Pibbsqueak. I'll take you at your word. You think this writing is "ridiculous." Prove how it's illogical, untrue, or ridiculous. Because frankly, it's all quite on the money.

I'll look forward to your "logical" refutation of the ideas expressed above, Pibbsqueak.

-- Can't Face the Music (little@pibbysqueak.com), March 26, 2001.

I'll start now, but I've got to leave for work in 3 minutes (so I will finish this after work).

To discredit the manual recounting process that they feared would result in the election of Al Gore, Republican representatives like Jim Baker propagated, in effect, the doctrine that human beings are incapable of being fair and objective in their interpretations of reality.

Please provide documentation from a credible news source showing that Mr. Baker actually said this or anything close to this.

To discredit judicial decisions that went (or simply might go) against their interests, they propagated, in effect, the doctrine that law does not have even a dimension of neutrality or disinterestedness but is from beginning to end an exercise of raw political power in disguise.

This statement is extremely vague, and could be used against both parties by the other side. Please explain exactly (and in detail how they did this).

...To Be Continued...

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.

No, Pibbsqueak. You're the one who said it is ridiculous, so you're the one who has to provide documentation or proof. I asked you to back up your ridiculous claims.

Anyway, I can't believe you are serious. Baker and Company said OVER and OVER that hand counting was like "mind reading," that it was inherently biased and slippery, that humans could not be trusted to read the intent of the voters, that ONLY MACHINES could.

Don't you remember -- TRUST THE MACHINES, NOT THE PEOPLE.

Don't you remember this, Pibbysqueak?

After the Florida Supreme Court made its judgements, Republicans accused them of raw partisan politics, and ravaged the integrity of the court by saying, again and again, that the justices were mere party players and that their opinions could not be trusted. They bad- mouthed the court in a shocking fashion all the way up until five partisan Supreme Court justices installed Bush and shocked the nation -- then, the GOP was strangely silent about partisanship.

Don't you remember that, Pibbysqueak?

-- Now Show YOUR Proof (pibby@squeak.com), March 26, 2001.

I guess you're going to keep whining until 2004.

Carry on.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 26, 2001.

Buddy, I guess you're just going to go about your life in total denial until 2004. Does it bother you that your little party is intellectully bankrupt? I didn't think so.

I have to laugh -- Pibbsqueak's argument runs thus:

1. Cut and paste text.

2. Type "provide documentation."

3. Say "I have to run off now."

I'm still waiting for your logical rebuttal, Pibbysqueak.

Please provide evidence that Baker ever said hand counts could be trusted, that human judgment was preferable to machine judgement.

Give me an example where the GOP said that the judicial process was inherently fair, not partisan or crooked or biased (before the federal Supreme Court decision, when suddenly they reverted to their previous philosopy).

Try to actually reason and type this time instead of running away, little Pibbysqueak.

-- Cowardly GOP (in@action.com), March 26, 2001.

Pibbysqueak, It sounds so nice when you say it, but that is not what the article said. The aritcle said "...Republican representatives like Jim Baker propagated, in effect, the doctrine that human beings are incapable of being fair and objective in their interpretations of reality. " This is a broad overstatement. If Baker said anything this oversweeping, you will need to show me where he said it. Otherwise it is just the author venting and putting words into Baker's mouth.

Both of these are doctrines that their intellectual spokespeople like Lynne Cheney claim to oppose and despise--doctrines that according to her, are nothing less than "an assault on Western Civilization." And, to compound the moral dilemma they were creating for themselves and their movement, these representatives proceeded to conduct themselves in ways that lent support to the validity of these same cynical, anticonservative doctrines.

You yourself admitted that Baker was talking about the human factor in determining votes. This was including "the intent of the voter". The author on the otherhand twisted the fact that Baker was talking about dertiming votes into ...the doctrine that human beings are incapable of being fair and objective in their interpretations of reality. So this paragraph is now comparing Lynne Cheney's claim to his caricature of what Baker was actually saying. Therefore this whole paragraph is based upon a faulty assumption and thus is worthless.

A party that for a long time has professed adherence to principles of states' rights and judicial restraint played federal judicial intervention as its trump card to insure the election of its candidate.

Ditto to what I just said.

This is no different then what many right wing "news sources" do. They are wrong for doing it, and so is this author.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.

As far as running away, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I am not going to be late for work for no good reason.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.

Baker said humans could not be trusted to comprehend, interpret, and report the reality of what the ballots visually showed. That humans could not look at a ballot and agree what a voter's intent was. That's what Baker said, and he therefore propagated, again and again, in effect, the doctrine that human beings are incapable of being fair and objective in their interpretations of reality.

What is so hard to understand about this Pibbsqueak? You are the one who is trying to twist words and reality.

It's a fact. Baker announced from his little media pulpit that hand counts were inherently inferior to machine counts because humans could not be trusted to interpret reality. This is not a "caricature" of reality -- this occured in fact. Baker said human hand counts were inferior to machine counts, that humans could not be trusted. This doctrine, that humans cannot be trusted to interpret reality, is, as Lynn Cheney has stated, "nothing less than 'an assault on Western Civilization.'"

You haven't provided an argument, poor little Pibbsqueak, you've merely tried to twist the rational arguments above, which are based on facts and reality, and can be documented from a review of the newspaper and media accounts from the post-election period when Baker and his henchmen said over and over that they were opposed to handcounts because humans couldn't be trusted to interpret reality truthfully and honestly.

George Bush said again and again that he "trusted the people," but when his ascendency was threated, he no longer trusted people, he trusted machines.

-- Your argument fails (try@again.com), March 26, 2001.

I stand by what I said. Perhaps ain't feels the same way abouth the articles he posts as you feel about the articles you post. Think about that for awhile.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr_pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.

Also, you never answered me - if I join your police force will they issue me a firearm?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.