Carl Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely"!! Oh My...

[JMS]

In the present also......?

I think Gore tried to suppress the Military Vote in Florida

And Florida has a large military contingent due to favorable tax policy

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_47_16/ai_72275397

"Every vote should count"

.....except the military and the heavy republican districts that Gore DIDN'T want a recount in

I don't by that. Gore wanted the rules followed. Absentee ballots had to be post marked by a certain date to be allowed. It's hardely similary wanting a fair count, and refusing to relax the rules of the election to favor your opponent.

Either way, Famously the Democrates did cheat when Kennedy and Johnson ran for President. That's where Nixon got some of his best ideas.

Remember when the Republicans were caught paying black evangelicals to suppress voter turn out in minority areas. Mayor Daly reilly retorted, "in Chicogo, Democrats never paid people not to vote"... That's right in Chicogo they paid people to vote multiple times, as well as having dead people vote.

[Corcaigh]

He lost a battle sure. But make no mistake. During his tenure, the war went the way of Gulf Part I.

You mean the war fought with Clinton's demoralized and underfunded military?

[RedskinzOwnU]

The only appropriate response to Rove at this point is:

Lollerskates!!

[Kilmer17]

JMS, a few things.

1- I apologize, I misread what you wrote. I thought you were saying Gore had won a recount in FL. My mistake.

2- CA had over a million uncounted absentee votes in 2000 (it may have been more than 2 mill). The reason is simple, even if EVERY ONE OF THEM had been for Bush, it wouldnt have been enough to overcome Gores lead. So why waste taxpayer money and time to count them. Similar events happen in every state every year.

3- Gore tried to suppress the military vote by CLAIMING the had to be postmarked by a certain date. They do not. They have to be COMPLETED by a certain date. That rule is written that way because as you can guess, it's hard to set a date when mail comes in and out of combat areas.

4- Gore also tried to suppress votes based on the claim that some absentee ballots were filled in by GOP operatives. When in fact, they were filled out by the voters themselves, and only ADDRESSED, by the operatives. Which is completely legal.

5- Gore didnt ask for a statewide recount, he cherry picked the precincts he THOUGHT would be easy to manipulate. Only to be met with the now infamous loafer mafia to prevent the shenanigans.

[Predicto]

2- CA had over a million uncounted absentee votes in 2000 (it may have been more than 2 mill). The reason is simple, even if EVERY ONE OF THEM had been for Bush, it wouldnt have been enough to overcome Gores lead. So why waste taxpayer money and time to count them. Similar events happen in every state every year.

Are you sure? I'm surprised, because we always have a dozen or more propositions and initiatives on the ballot that need to be counted. I can't imagine that every one of those issues were completely decided without absentee ballots.

[IHOPSkins]

You mean the war fought with Clinton's demoralized and underfunded military?

The Military that Gore/Clinton Gutted and NOW Rodham Clinton wants to "Rebuild"?

:laugh:

[Kilmer17]

Are you sure? I'm surprised, because we always have a dozen or more propositions and initiatives on the ballot that need to be counted. I can't imagine that every one of those issues were completely decided without absentee ballots.

Am I sure about the exact numbers? No. But I dont think it's much of a leap to grasp the overall point, which is that we have an electoral college system, so we dont pay attention to discrepencies smaller than what would affect the outcome.

I'll even go as far as to say that I PERSONALLY think Gore would have won if all of the votes had been counted, but it didnt matter. I also think that Bush would have spent more time campaigning in voterich Texas to pad his stats if it had mattered.

[JMS]

2- CA had over a million uncounted absentee votes in 2000 (it may have been more than 2 mill). The reason is simple, even if EVERY ONE OF THEM had been for Bush, it wouldnt have been enough to overcome Gores lead. So why waste taxpayer money and time to count them. Similar events happen in every state every year.

I've never heard of such a thing. I'll have to take your word for it. That is interesting.

3- Gore tried to suppress the military vote by CLAIMING the had to be postmarked by a certain date. They do not. They have to be COMPLETED by a certain date. That rule is written that way because as you can guess, it's hard to set a date when mail comes in and out of combat areas.

4- Gore also tried to suppress votes based on the claim that some absentee ballots were filled in by GOP operatives. When in fact, they were filled out by the voters themselves, and only ADDRESSED, by the operatives. Which is completely legal.

Again I think that is factually not accurate. These ballots in question were originally not counted by the Florida election officials because of problems with witness, voter signatures, and missing postmarks. Gore and Lieberman oposed the Republicans attempt to include them in the recournt. They were not involved in excluding them from the original election count.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/19/talk.show.wrap/

Ultimately it went to the Florida courts which ruled in favor of the Republicans, the absentee ballots would be recounted and ballots without valid postmarks would be included. But also in favor of the Democrates in that only ballots which were properly signed and dated would be included in the vote totals.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15627

Either way Gore only got involved with the controversy after the election officals had already rejected the votes and the Republicans were bringing suit to re-qualify them.

5- Gore didnt ask for a statewide recount, he cherry picked the precincts he THOUGHT would be easy to manipulate. Only to be met with the now infamous loafer mafia to prevent the shenanigans.

I don't think that's a fair or compatable critism. The Republicans in 2000 as in 2004 were actively involved in denying people their rights to vote in Ohio and Florida. They did so by dubios and now illegal means as these strategies have come before courts and have been found to be illegal. Sadly, often not illegal before the election, but still highly dubious.

Personally my favorite tactic was Jeb Bush hired a software company in Florida to ensure that fellons couldn't vote which is Florida law. Only the software produced only considered the applicants last name and was only used in majority Democratic districs. So Black males who's names were Johnston, Jackson, and Washington all were denied the vote on the pretense that they may be fellons. This effort was taken to court and outlawed for the 2004 election but went on throughout the 2000 election. That little trick alone likely cost the Democrates the 2000 Florida election and thousands of votes. The NAACP had 2000 signatures on petitions from people who claimed they were denied the vote....

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast

But what can you do after the election? To allow people to vote after the deadline invalidates the entire election nation wide.

What you are claiming the democrats did in this elections isn't the same at all. All Gore did here was try to defend dicisions which the Florida election officials had already made from Republican efforts to try to get them readdressed.

As I've said, Traditionally Democrates have been documented as cheating their way into office ( Kennedy, Johnson) just like Republicans (Nixon). In 2000 the Republicans were just far superior at it than the Democrates. As a partisan neither party can complain. As an American it's highly troubling that this bogus crap still goes on in 2000, and to a lesser degree 2004.

It's the biggest argument I can think of against electronic ballots which can not be indipendently audited and verified.

[Kilmer17]

"Personally my favorite tactic was Jeb Bush hired a software company to ensure that fellons couldn't vote which is Florida law. Only the software produced only considered the applicants last name and was only used in majority Democratic districs. So Black males who's names were Johnston, Jackson, and Washington all were denied the vote. This effort was taken to court and outlawed for the 2004 election."

I challenge you to produce evidence of 10 people who were denied their right to vote without a legitimate cause.

It's a battle cry used by race baiters to insinuate foul play, but nobody produces ACTUAL people to support the claims.

Bill Sammon wrote a great book about the whole ordeal. It's highly partisan, but the info on the facts of the election are eye opening. It's called "At Any Cost".

[JMS]

I challenge you to produce evidence of 10 people who were denied their right to vote without a legitimate cause.

Sorry my bad, I was recalling from memory and posted the link in my above words after you responded...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast

Remember this is not suposition or just baseless claims. The court ruled on thest tactics before the 2004 election and blocked this technique from continueing. The Republicans recieved the full benifit from this modern day Jim Crowe technique in 2000 however.

It's a battle cry used by race baiters to insinuate foul play, but nobody produces ACTUAL people to support the claims.

No it's documented history. The democrates went to court to have the technique banned from the 2004 election which the courts did.

What was Gore going to do after the election? Nixon had the same choice before him in 1960 when he faced Kennedy. It's not enough to know the other side has cheated a day late. To challenge the election after the fact is to throw the entire country into a constitutional crisis. What both parties do is to address the problems the best they can as the elections occur and live with the results however they turn out. That's what Nixon did vs Kennedy, that's what Humphrey did vs Nixon eight years latter. That's what Gore did against Bush in 2000. To do otherwise is to potentially allow the courts to block all future elections.

Bill Sammon wrote a great book about the whole ordeal. It's highly partisan, but the info on the facts of the election are eye opening. It's called "At Any Cost".

I'm not familiar with Bill Sammon, but I think that's a good title. "At any Cost" is a good title. Cheating is rampant in American elections and have been historically. It's only usually when those elections are decided by a razor thin margins that the cheating becomes a deciding factor. Both parties do it. All Americans should be shocked, ashamed, and vigilant cause ultimately it's we who suffer.