Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Had this been done by an RNC head on a doormat of Clinton it would've been all over the liberally-biased news programs as an affront to the office...Does anyone need further proof of the bias?

Anyway in answer to your rhetorical question, McAullife has just begun to sink to new lows.
He can & will go lower.

Posted by cva at March 26, 2004 11:02 AM

As I recall, Saddam Hussein did something similer with a tile mosaic, depicting Bush Sr., outside the Palestine Hotel in Bahgdad that people had to walk across.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 26, 2004 11:05 AM

I seriously think McAuliffe is just wanting to push his party as far as possible, therefore showing the John F'ing Kerry is more conservative than the rest of the party.

Posted by Brian at March 26, 2004 11:12 AM

Gee, where's the Kerry/Clinton/Gore/Dean/Lenin/Marx toilet paper when you need it? Man! would I *love* to be the janitor in the DNC for one day and replace EVERY roll in all the bathrooms w/ Kerry toilet paper!!! (And then give them eXlax brownies...)

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 26, 2004 11:27 AM

- Eric.

Which would then cause someone to want to put Bush fresheners in the RNC's urinals. And then, as retribute...

It all too juvinile for me. Is it any wonder half the people don't care for either person.

Posted by Ken A. at March 26, 2004 11:44 AM

The difference is that Bill Clinton was legitimately elected President (twice) while George Bush is in office because of electoral fraud (as documented in Michael Moore's book) and more than a little help from his veep's duck-hunting buddy.

Notwithstanding all that, I grant that it was an incredibly stupid thing for McAuliffe to do. I'm beginning to understand why you hold the Democrats in such low regard, Rand. I'm starting to get there myself. :-(

Posted by Ron Garret at March 26, 2004 12:13 PM

"Michael Moore's book"? Michael Moore has never written (or produced) a work of non-fiction.

Please, Ron. My respect for you just plummeted.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 26, 2004 12:36 PM

I don't think Bill Clinton was ever elected with a majority of the popular vote and never garnered more total votes than George W. Bush.

Posted by MichaelT at March 26, 2004 02:23 PM

Just when you think that McAuliffe can't sink any lower...

I never think McAwful can sink any lower. Posted by Barbara Skolaut at March 26, 2004 03:47 PM

> Michael Moore has never written (or produced) a work of non-fiction.

The International Documentary Association disagrees with you. In 2002 they rated Moore's films as the #1 and #3 best documentaries of all time. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences disagrees with you too. They gave him an Oscar for best documentary film.

But you don't have to take my word for it, or the IDA's, or the AMPAS, or even Moore himself. All his claims are well documented in other sources, all of which are referenced in his book.

By the way, Rand, how do you know that all of Moore's works are fiction? Have you read and seen them all? (For that matter, have you read or seen any of them?)

> My respect for you just plummeted.

Oh dear. Rand's respect for me has plummeted. Whatever shall I do?

From Michael:

> I don't think Bill Clinton was ever elected with a majority of the popular vote

That's true (though he came damn close in '96) but he always got more popular votes than either of his opponents, unlike George W. Bush.

> and never garnered more total votes than George W. Bush.

Yes, but that means nothing. When Clinton was running the population was smaller, and Ross Perot took a big chunk of the vote (much bigger than Nader). It's apples and oranges.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 26, 2004 04:17 PM

Bowling for Columbine was full of staged scenes and mistruths that have been well documented. The fact that Hollywood gave him awards for fictional documentaries means nothing. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no compunction whatsoever about lying and twisting the truth.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 26, 2004 04:29 PM

> he always got more popular votes than either of his opponents, unlike George W. Bush.

Just to clarify, I do not mean to imply by this that George W. Bush's presidency is illegitimate because he did not win the popular vote (though I note in passing that he is the first person in history to win the White House without receiving more of the popular vote than any of his opponents). I am also not saying that Moore is necessarily correct that election fraud changed the outcome in Florida. But I do think that Moore's claims are sufficiently well documented that they cannot be dismissed out of hand, and certainly not by anyone who hasn't actually read what he has to say. And in light of that I think one should be careful before getting too huffy about someone using George Bush's face on a doormat no matter how tasteless and foolish such an act may be.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 26, 2004 04:40 PM

he is the first person in history to win the White House without receiving more of the popular vote than any of his opponents...

He got more of the popular vote than all of his opponents, other than Gore. Not that it matters, since the president isn't elected by popular vote.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 26, 2004 04:44 PM

> than any of his opponents

My mistake. Should have read "one of his opponents." Before Dubya, the person in the White House was always the one who got the most (though not always a majority of the) popular votes.

> Bowling for Columbine was full of staged scenes and mistruths that have been well documented.

So? Like conservatives never spin things their way? Does everything Ann Coulter writes automatically become fiction just because Al Franken was able to debunk some of it? (Well, OK, a lot of it, but you get my point.)

Bowlingfortruth.com makes some good points, but it does its own share of spinning, like trying to make hay out of the fact that witches in the U.S. were not burned as Moore claims (in a cartoon) -- they were hanged instead. I'm sure that mattered a lot to the poor women who were killed. Pot. Kettle. Non sequitur.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 26, 2004 05:12 PM

When you subtract all of the dead people and people who voted twice for Gore, I sleep sure that Bush really got more of the "Honest" popular vote.

It is amazing how McDowell County WV had 110% voter participation! A county where 40% of the population is functionally without proper "book larnin'"!

Ron,

If you are going to make the logical fallacy of "Appeal to authority" please appeal to one who has not been caught in dozens of lies like Michale Moore.

Read Rand's "Bowling for Truth" link and let the scales fall from your eyes.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 26, 2004 05:12 PM

Ron,

You really like being wrong today don't you??

"In 1824, John Quincy Adams, son of President John Adams, became president despite receiving fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson, who finished first but failed to win a majority of either vote. Adams, after striking a deal with the third-place candidate, was elected president by Congress as required by the Constitution when no candidate wins an electoral vote majority. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams handily.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden by 247,000 votes, but won the Electoral College by one vote, 185 to 184. Hayes, who served one term, was derided by critics as "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud."

In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 votes but lost the Electoral College vote 233-168 to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, Cleveland ousted Harrison from office, winning both the popular and electoral votes by a wide margin. "

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 26, 2004 05:15 PM

> You really like being wrong today don't you??

No, not really.

> In 1824...
> In 1876...
> In 1888

Well, whaddya know.

I was getting my stats from http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/

I went back 100 years and couldn't find another example, so I assumed it hadn't happened. Mea culpa.

All this has nothing to do with whether Moore is right about Florida though, and even less to do with Dubya's face on a doormat.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 26, 2004 05:48 PM

Quoth Ron Garret:

"The difference is that Bill Clinton was legitimately elected President (twice) while George Bush is in office because of electoral fraud (as documented in Michael Moore's book)..."

AND

"The International Documentary Association disagrees with you. In 2002 they rated Moore's films as the #1 and #3 best documentaries of all time. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences disagrees with you too. They gave him an Oscar for best documentary film.

But you don't have to take my word for it, or the IDA's, or the AMPAS, or even Moore himself. All his claims are well documented in other sources, all of which are referenced in his book."

BWAHAHAHAHA! Michael (Mr. Far Left of Lenin) Moore as a scholarly source?? It's not April Fools' Day YET...

Gee, big surprise that two equally far left organizations (neither of which base such ratings on anything other than popularity, certainly not on something as rigorous as a peer review for a scholarly journal) liked his tripe. As for the alleged documentation, hogwash! The Dems and their lap-dog media outlets regularly take things wildly out of context or just make things up out of their butts, but then manage to post-facto find some way to substantiate their outrages.

Case in point... The whole 'Bush was AWOL' thing. Even with all the media scrutiny, I never once saw a single witness produced who could place W any place other than where he was supposed to be. That nut job McAuliffe fabricated the whole thing and then simply asserted (in direct opposition to our cherished notion of 'innocent until proven guilty') that the burden of proof was on Bush. I've never had a very high opinion of the Dems, but I honestly expected that there might be enough honest, morally-upstanding members that there would be a call for his resignation (or a mass exodus of said honest Dems). But apparently the entire party is so morally bankrupt that's not possible.

- Eric.

Posted by at March 26, 2004 06:08 PM

If Moore was right about Florida, it would be the first time he was ever right.

The fact Is Bush won EVERY recount, including the one the media did AFTER Bush was declared winner. They counted the ballots by every standard concivable and Bush won all counts.

Who is more credible? Moore or CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

"Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."

Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported.

The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.

The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted.

The experts assigned by USA Today and the Herald began counting the undervotes -- ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines -- on December 18, 2000.

They concluded their work on March 13.

Reaction to the verdict of the two newspapers was mixed, but some of the people who were key players in the 36-day recount drama that followed last Election Day agreed Wednesday that the results indicated Florida has a lot of work to do to improve its elections system.

"We have to try to improve the election infrastructure, improve the education of voters," said former Florida elections official and CNN analyst David Cardwell.

Cardwell argued Florida needs to implement a more uniform method of collecting and counting votes across the state, and many localities are in desperate need of updated voting equipment. Many of the counties that logged significant numbers of undervotes were using punch card machines that were more than 30 years old.

Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Gore, concurred with Cardwell, saying the federal government should take the initiative to provide money to localities that cannot afford to replace aging and unreliable equipment.

Hattaway told CNN on Wednesday that the Gore camp has accepted Bush as the legitimate president, but there are still lessons to be learned from the efforts of the Miami Herald and USA Today, and other ongoing recount endeavors, including a consortium recount of both undervotes and "overvotes."

"Overvotes" are ballots that displayed more than one mark that might be interpreted as a vote for president. CNN is one of many news organizations participating in that ballot count.

"People understand that this is an academic exercise," Hattaway said. "Hopefully, this will lead to some sort of reform so this does not happen again.

He did level some criticism at the Bush White House, saying the new administration has shown little interest in tackling the problem.

Montana Republican Gov. Mark Racicot, who acted as a spokesman for the Republicans as the Gore and Bush camps tussled in the media through the long November-December recount battle in the courts, said Wednesday that the administration is interested in finding a resolution to counting problems in Florida and other states.

But, he added, this is primarily an issue that the states need to address themselves.

"These are specifically state problems," Racicot said. "You can't wield the power of the federal government on the states."

Racicot said Bush hasn't given much thought to the various recount projects in Florida.

"This shows President Bush wins again," he said. "He won the first count, then the recount, then the manual recounts, and was declared the victor this time by the media.

"What this says is what the American people set in their minds a long time ago," Racicot continued. "This election is over, and President Bush is the victor."

Hattaway, in turn, said Gore is getting on with his life.

"His bottom line was that all the votes should be counted," Hattaway said. "He's following (the count) to see what this says about the system and what we can do to reform it.

CNN Miami Bureau Chief John Zarrella and Ian Christopher McCaleb contributed to this story."

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 26, 2004 06:10 PM

The Electoral College, another antiquated system that has outlived its usefulness. When we have true national elections then may be we will get more people to care. If every other office is selected by popular vote, why not the most important?

Posted by Ken A. at March 27, 2004 08:33 AM

On what basis do you think that it's outlived its usefulness? Do you even know why it exists?

(Hint, the founders gave us a federal republic, not a democracy).

Among other reasons, if we went to a pure popular vote system, politicians wouldn't have to be responsive to smaller states and rural areas--they'd just do big ad buys in the cities, and everyone outside them would be screwed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 27, 2004 08:38 AM

Mike Puckett:

> The fact Is Bush won EVERY recount

That is not in dispute (and if you'd read the book you would have known that).

Eric:

> BWAHAHAHAHA! Michael (Mr. Far Left of Lenin) Moore as a scholarly source?

Have you read the book? I didn't think so. If you had you might have been able to muster an argument based on the merits rather than the author's political ideology.

Since none of you seem to have actually read the book you are so supremely confident has no merit, I'll spoon-feed it to you. The chapter in question includes four pages of references. The first one is:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=palast&c=1

Read it.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 27, 2004 09:11 AM

I daresay the Electorial College has served to limit the US to only one insurrection in the past two centuries.

Without it, the rural areas would proabally be left to force of arms as a redress of grievence.

Pure democracy is a pretty name for "Mob Rule".

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 27, 2004 10:53 AM

Quoth Ron Garret:

"Have you read the book? I didn't think so. If you had you might have been able to muster an argument based on the merits rather than the author's political ideology."

It is by Michael Moore. By definition it can have no merit. Moore is so far out of touch with anything resembling reality that he is incapable of writing anything having merit. Look, no matter how many "sources" he pulls out of his enormous butt, (or how many somewhat legit sources he creatively misinterprets) doesn't change the fact that he has been conclusively proven WRONG w.r.t. the legitimacy of the Bush election. I've got plenty of other things I want to read, I certainly don't want to waste that time on tripe manufactured by a delusional hack.

If you come up with an HONEST source, perhaps folks will be willing to engage in discussion.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 27, 2004 01:55 PM

Kind of like assigning credibility to "The little boy who cried wolf".

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 27, 2004 02:02 PM

> It is by Michael Moore. By definition it can have no merit.

> Kind of like assigning credibility to "The little boy who cried wolf".

So if someone says something that turns out not to be true (like that there are WOMDs in Iraq) then we should not listen to anything else they have to say?

OK, I can live with that. So we'll discount both Moore and Bush. But that still leaves us with that story in The Nation (and dozens of other sources that I don't have time to spoon-feed you). Of course, you didn't bother to read that either, did you?

Posted by Ron Garret at March 28, 2004 09:40 AM

So if someone says something that turns out not to be true (like that there are WOMDs in Iraq) then we should not listen to anything else they have to say?

No, when someone is an inveterate liar with a political axe to grind, we shouldn't listen to anything they have to say. Life is too short to read books by Michael Moore, at least if one's end is to be informed, as opposed to simply entertained.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 28, 2004 09:50 AM

I say, S.D.B. for president (in 2008) and Ann Coulter for secretary of state. Keep Rummy, but rename it the Dept. of War! (including the exclamation point.)

The next step is mass deportation (to quebec) for anybody that has anything good to say about the U.N. or thinks Carter, Clinton, Gore or Kerry would make a good president.

Yeah, that would do it... no wait, Buchanan made permanent czar of the INS. Ok, now we're good.

Posted by ken anthony at March 28, 2004 10:05 AM

> No, when someone is an inveterate liar with a political axe to grind

Sounds like Bush to me. He lied about Iraqi WOMD (either that or he displayed gross incompetence -- take your pick) and two high-ranking members of his own staff now say that he had an Iraqi axe to grind.

> we shouldn't listen to anything they have to say

OK.

> Life is too short to read books by Michael Moore

And, apparently, too short to read an article by Gregory Palast too. But plenty long enough to read Ann Coulter I'll wager.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 28, 2004 01:01 PM

Yes, we know it does, Ron, to you, but there's no evidence that he has lied despite that, sorry.

He displayed no more gross incompetence than Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or Ted Kennedy, or Tom Daschle or any of the other other people who assured us for years that Saddam had WMD. Or were they all lying, too? And what high-ranking members of his staff say he had an Iraqi axe to grind, other than Clarke? Did Bill Clinton, whose policy for Iraq was regime change, have an Iraqi axe to grind?

I find all this historical revisionism breathtaking.

And, no, I don't read Ann Coulter, at least not her books, and her columns only rarely.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 28, 2004 01:14 PM

Quoth the Ronald...

"So if someone says something that turns out not to be true (like that there are WOMDs in Iraq) then we should not listen to anything else they have to say?"
AND
"Sounds like Bush to me. He lied about Iraqi WOMD (either that or he displayed gross incompetence -- take your pick) and two high-ranking members of his own staff now say that he had an Iraqi axe to grind."

The key difference is Moore deliberately fabricates and distorts. What the Bush administration stated was believed to be true by virtually the entire world. The ONLY argument was a matter of degree, i.e., how MUCH WMD Saddam had, and urgency. Far from grossly incompetent (you must be confusing him w/ Clinton), W did one of the most difficult things in management (and for which his Harvard MBA prepared him) -- make a decision that must be made and do so with information that you believe to be right but which may be incomplete. And before you start, yes, the decision had to be made -- review what David Kay said about just how dangerous and chaotic things REALLY were. And, just to be clear, the WMD, by even the lowest UN estimate of amount, MUST STILL EXIST, because they were known to exist and have yet to be found! Personally, I rather someone find proof otherwise, but in the absence of such proof we'd best be assuming they're around and in unknown hands. So, now you see what's at stake this November. Can we really trust the world's future to someone with views that change more often than his underwear and who has yet to provide any intelligible specifics on anything (instead asserting 'Bush bad, me good.')?? Clearly the answer is no.

As for your definition of a lie... Let's just say that you must have had Clinton teaching you vocabulary. A lie requires three things: you must state a falsehood; you must KNOW it's false; AND, you must make the statement with the intent to deceive. If someone states that the sky is paisley, that's not a lie. It meets conditions 1 & 2, but clearly nobody is ever going to seriously intend to deceive with something so absurd. Now, look at the Bush administration statements regarding Saddam's WMD. Since what was thought to be true turned out not to be, condition 1 is met. But that's the ONLY condition met. Given that the UN and pretty much every nation on earth believed Saddam had WMD, it's indisputable that condition 2 is NOT met. And, by default, that means condition 3 is also not met. So, no WMD lie. QED.

As a final note, these conditions make a good filter by which to test statements the Dems make (and, all too often, they fail all three conditions). Like, for example, the campaign of lies regarding the alleged unemployment situation. [Hint, there are TWO unemployment surveys, traditionally it's the Payroll Survey that gets quoted, even though, given the known employment trends (toward non-traditional jobs) the Household Survey is likely the more accurate. You know, the one that actually shows (IIRC) net job GROWTH during the Bush administration...]

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 28, 2004 02:28 PM

> And what high-ranking members of his staff say he had an Iraqi axe to grind, other than Clarke?

Paul O'Neil. My, how quickly we forget.

> The key difference is Moore deliberately fabricates and distorts.

Uranium from Africa. Weapons of mass destruction related program activities. Sounds like fabrications and distortions to me. And there is no question but that they were deliberate.

But all this is beside the point because Moore's honesty is not the issue, nor is Bush's honesty. The issue is whether Bush ascended to the presidency in part as a result of illegal actions on the part government officials in Florida. It's amazing how hard all of you are spinning to avoid dealing with the Palast piece.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 28, 2004 07:11 PM

Paul O'Neil. My, how quickly we forget.

Ah, yes. Another fired and disgruntled (and confused) employee.

Uranium from Africa.

Yes? Has that been proven false?

Weapons of mass destruction related program activities.

Do you continue to live in a fantasy world in which that wasn't Saddam's aim?

Sounds like fabrications and distortions to me.

Yes. To you.

And there is no question but that they were deliberate.

Yes. To you.

Amazing only to those who live in the fantasyland of "Bush stole the election."

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 28, 2004 09:46 PM

Quoth the Ronald:

"> And what high-ranking members of his staff say he had an Iraqi axe to grind, other than Clarke?

Paul O'Neil. My, how quickly we forget."

You know what Bush is REALLY guilty of? Thinking that people associated with the Clinton administration had enough integrity to be kept on. Bush trusted these people enough to keep them on and that trust is rewarded by betrayal. Speaks volumes about the trustworthiness of high-level Dems, doesn't it.

AND

"> The key difference is Moore deliberately fabricates and distorts.

Uranium from Africa. Weapons of mass destruction related program activities. Sounds like fabrications and distortions to me. And there is no question but that they were deliberate."

Good heavens! You're right and I'm such an idiot! The NSA and other such US Gov't agencies are all omniscient -- their spy satellites can count the hairs on your head! From 36,000 miles away, they were peering with x-ray sensors through into secret rooms and so they knew with absolute certainty that some shadowy foreign operative was pushing around embellished reports of uranium traffic. And they, along with the Illuminati and the black helicopter crowd, decided that they would use that as an excuse for war (so they could control Iraqi oil). The Tripartite Commission and the Roswell greys planted the obviously false indications of a WMD program to further along their agenda as well. It's all so clear now! Thank you for helping me see the light!

[Ron, I suggest you a)calculate the number of pixels required to image all of Iraq at say, 10 cm resolution, once every 10 minutes, 24/7/365; and b)think closely about the attributes of exactly the kind of people one would have to recruit to successfully infiltrate either Saddam's regime or al-Queda. Then, maybe, you'll finally understand that much of the intel will be spotty, fuzzy and ambiguous. Perhaps once you get that extremely simple concept, you'll stop ranting about 'fabrication'.

AND

"But all this is beside the point because Moore's honesty is not the issue, nor is Bush's honesty. The issue is whether Bush ascended to the presidency in part as a result of illegal actions on the part government officials in Florida. It's amazing how hard all of you are spinning to avoid dealing with the Palast piece."

And the answer, as has been amply and plainly proven at every examination of the facts, is that there was NO illegal action by Fla. Gov't. officials. No matter how long you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "La la la, I can't hear you", the fact remain unchanged that Bush is our legally and duly elected president. A fact, I might remind you, that even the liberal media have grudgingly come to admit.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 29, 2004 07:02 AM

> > Uranium from Africa.
> Yes? Has that been proven false?

It has been proven to be a fabrication, which is to say, it has been admitted that there was no and never was and credible evidence for it. It has not been. and probably cannot be, proven false. But then again, it's never been proven that Bigfoot doesn't exist either. Or WOMDs in Iraq for that matter. Either one could be found any day now (and Dick Cheney is reported to be still optimistic about both).

>And the answer, as has been amply and plainly proven at every examination of the facts,

Could you cite a reference for me please? Remember, we're not talking about the election results, which, as I said earlier, are indeed not in dispute.

> is that there was NO illegal action by Fla. Gov't. officials.

Actually, Florida officials have tacitly admitted that there was.

See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PAL211A.html

In April of this year [2002], [Katherine] Harris wrote that [Palast's] reporting was "twisted and maniacally partisan" -- but not, in the main, wrong. The Secretary of State, now candidate for Congress for Sarasota, settled [a lawsuit], agreeing that legal voters had been mistakenly purged...

Posted by Ron Garret at March 29, 2004 09:45 AM

>> Uranium from Africa.
> Yes? Has that been proven false?

It has been proven to be a fabrication

It has not. British intelligence continues to stand by it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 29, 2004 09:55 AM

Quoth the Ronald:

">And the answer, as has been amply and plainly proven at every examination of the facts,

Could you cite a reference for me please? Remember, we're not talking about the election results, which, as I said earlier, are indeed not in dispute."

Geez, you're sounding like Kerry. First we're talking about the "illegal" election then we're not. (BTW, scroll up in this discussion. There was one reference reproduced in its entirety.) But it gets better, because in your very next statement you flip-flop AGAIN and now we're talking about the "illegal" election again.

AND

"> is that there was NO illegal action by Fla. Gov't. officials.

Actually, Florida officials have tacitly admitted that there was.

See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PAL211A.html"

THIS??? is your vaunted source??? Puh-leeze! Innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations and opinion. Typical yellow journalism. As usual, when a Dem can't find anything else to do, turn it into some sort of manufactured racism issue.

Riddle me this... Point me to one conviction that has resulted from the alleged illegality. If you have information of a specific illegal act, by all means, contact the proper authorities. I'll wait... *(taps pen, looks at watch)* Oh, are you still here? Perhaps it's because no laws were violated. Just as our spy agencies are far from omniscient, the process of conducting an election is also far from perfect. What you describe is, while unfortunate, not all that unusual. That, however, no matter how bitter you may be about it, does NOT raise it to the level of a crime.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 29, 2004 01:08 PM

> Innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations and opinion.

Wishing does not make it so. That article was written by Greg Palast, "an award-winning BBC reporter who has also written for Salon, Harper's, and the Washington Post."

But I suppose you wouldn't believe anything unless you saw it on Fox News.

> Point me to one conviction that has resulted from the alleged illegality.

Point me to one conviction that has resulted from the death of Nicole Simpson. I'll wait... *(taps pen, looks at watch)* Oh, are you still here? Perhaps it's because no laws were violated. Maybe she committed suicide (or maybe she was abducted by space aliens and that wasn't really her body).

> the process of conducting an election is also far from perfect. What you describe is, while unfortunate, not all that unusual. That, however, no matter how bitter you may be about it, does NOT raise it to the level of a crime.

Actually, it does. Preventing an eligible voter from voting is a civil rights violation, which is a Federal offense. And your attititude is repugnant. On the one hand you seem to concede the facts of the situation, but on the other hand you wave it off and say that because it's "not unusual" and that "the process of conducting an election is far from perfect" that makes it OK.

Would you still be so sanguine about it if 5,000 white Republican voters had been turned away at the polls and that the election would have swung to Gore as a result. Of course not. You (and half the country) would be screaming bloody murder -- and rightly so.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 29, 2004 05:07 PM

Ron,

1) "That article was written by Greg Palast, "an award-winning BBC reporter who has also written for Salon, Harper's, and the Washington Post." "

Well, the article should've at least carried a designation that it was an editorial or opinion piece. Without such a disclaimer, one must assume the so-called journalist is attempting to write something based on fact. And if this article is a shining example of Palast's journalistic skills, then those giving the awards are pinheads. Also, writing for the Post isn't a mark of distinction. Personally, I only take the Sunday edition to get the coupons. They don't bother to fact-check their pieces (as has been amply proven on these boards w.r.t. aerospace articles). Based on the article you cited, Palast is just another wannabe hack that thinks his opinion is equal to fact and that the truth is his to distort to match his far-out views. Just like virtually the entirety of the press.

2) "Point me to one conviction that has resulted from the death of Nicole Simpson."

You really like putting up silly strawmen just to watch them burn... Spare me. You know very well that the point is that if any law had actually been broken, someone would've filed charges by now. I'll give you this, though, you've got the whole left-wing 'twist things around to try and confuse things or make a point" thing down pat.

3) "> the process of conducting an election is also far from perfect. What you describe is, while unfortunate, not all that unusual. That, however, no matter how bitter you may be about it, does NOT raise it to the level of a crime.

No, actually it does NOT. As I said, if you have some concrete proof that eligible voters were DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY denied their voting rights, by all means, call the Feds. My attitude reflects REALITY, which you've made quite clear you find repugnant. There's zero inconsistency with acknowledging the fact that there were problems in the voting process, and noting that it is also a fact that such errors occur in every election to one degree or another.
Oh, and btw, there were other districts in Fla. in 2000 where problems caused an undercount of Republican votes.

Ultimately, the Left expect the Gov't to be mommy & daddy, they are insecure unless there's someone 'higher' taking care of them, so they don't have to take responsibility themselves. But, like all children, the Left believes mommy & daddy to be bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. than is the actual case. It's no surprise, therefore, that the Left expects the Gov't to have all-seeing, all-knowing intelligence and to have flawless elections -- that way, if something goes wrong, then it must have been deliberate, perhaps a vast Right Wing conspiracy.

The Right, OTOH, doesn't want the Gov't taking on any more than it absolutely must. The people in the Gov't are our EQUALS, not endowed with any greater ability or in any way superior. People, and the processes they come up with, are quite imperfect. Deal with it!

Ron, if you want to continue to live in a world where the truth is what you want to spin it to be, be my guest. As for me, I think this whole discussion has reached the pointless level -- we disprove you and yet you continue to try to rephrase, as if saying the same thing differently will change the underlying truth (or fiction in the case of your points).

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 29, 2004 06:06 PM

> As for me, I think this whole discussion has reached the pointless level

There, at least, is one thing we can agree on.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 29, 2004 11:35 PM

Post a comment