Slashdot Mirror

They even had a non-partisan group do a recount after the fact, and the paper trail showed that Bush in fact did win Florida.

No.

Data from the NORC recount shows that under the legal standard in force at the time, the "intent of the voter", more ballots were cast for Gore than for Bush.

As the Washington Post admitted (though only deep into an article whose headline and lead tells how recounts would have favored Bush):

Under several scenarios examined by the consortium, and using a standard in which two of the three reviewers agreed on the markings on each ballot, Gore emerged with more votes than Bush.

The overvotes that could have provided the margin for Gore were on ballots where voters tried to be extra-clear in their choice and ended up nullifying the vote. They filled in the oval next to a candidate and then filled in the oval for "write-in" and wrote the same candidate's name again.

...

The narrowest margin, according to the study, came under a scenario in which at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots -- the prevailing standard across the state of Florida at the time -- or any mark on the optical scan ballots showing clear voter intent. In that case, the study showed Gore with 60 votes more than Bush.

Gore's margin grows under three other scenarios. Under the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes), Gore had 107 more votes.

Gore's margin rose to 115 votes in the study under a tighter standard, calling for chads to be fully punched and a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots.

But this is one case where disagreements among the reviewers affected the outcome. Gore won under this scenario when two of the reviewers agree on the markings. Under a standard in which all three were required to agree, Bush won by 219 votes.

Gore's largest margin in a statewide recount involving all ballots comes under a scenario that sought to recreate the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts. In that case, Gore emerged with 171 more votes than Bush.

That's not even taking into account the inclusion of illegitimate absentee ballots that favored Bush, or the illegal disenfranchisement of likely Gore voters, or the poorly-designed and illegal "butterfly ballots" in Palm Beach.

It also appears that, emboldened by their success in Florida in 2000, the Bush camp went on to conduct massive vote fraud in Ohio in 2004, quite possibly enough to steal the election there.

uh oh, forgot to put on the flame retardant overcoat before I said that

Not meant as a flame. The corporate mainstream media did in fact report as if the recount favored Bush, by focusing on what recounts were demanded under Gore's strategy rather than the question of what ballots were actually cast.

But it is clear that in Florida in 2000, more voters went to the polls intending to vote for Gore; despite intimidation and illegal purges of the voter rolls, more voters got to the voting booth intending to vote for Gore; and despite bad balloting technology and practices (which disproportionately affected poor neighborhoods, making a mockery of "equal protection"), more voters voted for Gore than voted for Bush.

But the GOP played better politics than the spineless, gonad-less, soulless thing that is all that remains of the Democratic Party. And so came the point the historians will mark as the end of the

Remember, it was Nader's line, and he cost Gore the election.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election. Gore screwed himself by failing to distinguish himself from Bush, so that he won with such a narrow margin that scumbag Republicans were able to steal the election.

Was there a big difference between Gore and Bush in 2000? Maybe. Did Gore make it clear that there was a difference? No. That's his fault.

Of course, it's not Gore's fault that thousands were illegally disenfranchised, that illegitimate absentee ballots were counted, that illegal ballot forms were used, that faulty ballot counting technology was used. It is Gore's fault that he called only for a limited recount, not a full state-wide one - which would have revealed that in spite of all the dirty tactics, Gore still got more votes in Florida.

But Gore should have whipped Bush like a red-headed stepchild. There's no excuse for it having been close enough to steal.

Drugs.

Very astute!

But even Orwell could never have imagine back in 1948 that the future "Big Brother" government would actually be a paid-for puppet of the Corporation(tm).

I served my country. I love my country. But my government, not so much.

I can't let this one go. Republican strategists tried for all 8 years of Clinton's presidency to nail him, they hated him so. The fact that the most credible charge they could come up with was lying about the Lewinsky affair(which was, I admit, stupid and unnecessary) is a testament to his relative integrity as a politician. He was under such heavy scrutiny from the Republican congress that they would have nailed him to the cross had he done something else even remotely as morally reprehensible. But none of preceding accusations levied against him held water, so they were left with the stupid Lewinsky tapes. This is not to excuse him, but to simply show that we once had a competent and relatively honest creature for our president.

This all lies in contrast, of course, to our current president, whose resignation you apparently aren't calling for. He hasn't been held accountable for a single false, misleading, or outright deceptive public statement, of which there are plenty to cite. Some say that these lies have directly resulted in as many as half a million deaths. The only reason he has gotten away with them is because he has encountered virtually no resistance or scrutiny from Congress, and has skillful deceptive tactictians who, in a very real, cynical, Machiavellian sense, have artfully deceived the entire world, America included, into turning over as much power as possible to them and their cronies. Heavy accusations, I know. But unlike many of the Republican accusations against Clinton, these hold water.

So what I suppose you are really complaining about is that Clinton got caught.

Not liberal? Well what do you call THIS!?!?!? Huh, that's what I thought!

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

This is a summary site; it's fairly compelling though.

I believe you are flat wrong about the exclusion of minority voters. If you aren't on the rolls, you don't get a ballot. Harris had the rolls purged, intentionally broadening the definition of a match to absurd lengths to cast a wider net. UP to 90% of those matched were falsely matched. And she was well aware of it.

And I can't agree with your assessment of the Supreme's actions. They (wrongly) asserted that only a single standard could be applied statewide, then (even more wrongly) asserted that a statewide recount could not be completed in time.

I don't recall the precise language of the injunction issued, but it had to do with "harm to the winner, Bush..." indicating a weirdly preordained conclusion. The proceedings were, after all, to determine who the winner was, and the rightful winner would be harmed if the election process denied them office.

It's more complicated than just the price of crude oil...witness:

Your breakdown doesn't in any way refute my point. Instead of making personal attacks please concetrate on refuting my claim...I was honestly hoping for some information.

-the fact that oil refineries generally are working at capacity, and the "left" won't let any more be built

Are you suggesting that demand has increased almost 300% in 5 years?

-the fact that only a fraction of the crude oil used by the US is made into gasoline...the rest goes into plastics, heating oil, jet fuel, steel, asphalt, tar, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, cosmetics, etc.

gasoline prices are an indicator of oil prices, we're talking about oil here. Regardless of how it is used, the oil people are making the profit.

-the fact that 31% of the cost of gas is TAXES

Basic math, if you increase the price of the thing you're taxing the other 68% of the 'cost of gas' is still going directly into the coffers of those selling the product. I.e., higher cost==more money.

-the fact that refineries are forced by environmentalists to make many different kinds of gasoline for the canadians, the midwesterners, the east coast-ers, etc.

And this is relevant to this discussion how?

-the fact that plenty of idiots drive huge vehicles with huge engines...BY THEMSELVES, WITH NO PASSENGERS OR CARGO!

This was also true in 1998 when regular gas was $0.86 a gallon in Georgia, 6 years later it's now $2.25 a gallon. Driving habits haven't changed, and are not in any way responsible for the price increase.

And how is ANY of this Bush's fault?

None of what you brought up is Bush's fault, but that's because you brought up completely irrelevant issues. My post was about who is making money from high oil prices.

I suppose you think you let yourself off the hook with "not just a misinformed comment". It's hard to prove, in most cases, whether he really did know better and was deliberately lying, or didn't know better and said what he mistakenly believed. But ultimately, what does that matter? Is an ignorant president any better than a deceptive one? If anything, I think it's worse.

The list of false statements by this president, intentional or otherwise, is practically endless. Here are a few to get you started. (But I'm not vouching for that site; it's just an example, via Google.)

Of course his most notorious lie is the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But I think his worst lie was when he swore to protect and defend the Constitution.

Have you considered that you may not get a reply because your question is a non sequitur?

Or perhaps because if you type "Bush Lies" into Google, you'll get an answer?

Are you not aware, for example, that Bush completely blew Clinton's surplus and his balanced budget, the first time the budget was balanced for thirty years, and your supposedly conservative president just threw it away for a cheap political stunt, that tax cut you're so enamored of?

Or that No Child Left Behind is mind-boggingly underfunded and ineffective?

Or that Bush lies? Like, never tells the truth? Ever? Like, not once?

Do you choose not to believe this information, or have you just not heard about it?

And I'm just touching on a few of the more minor issues with Bush and his administration. Let's not even mention the total fuckup in Iraq, which surely you can't be as ignorant about as you claim. You'll excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you're not voting for Bush. You have no idea why you shouldn't vote for Bush. You're either not interested enough to educate yourself properly on the issues, or you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican pretending to be independent to convince others that Dubya is truly god, as he himself believes. If you're the former, get a clue and turn off CNN (the Convservative News Network) and Faux News. If you're the latter, then just fuck off.

Have you been hiding in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years?

Look Here

Despite the "appointed" crack, he was in fact elected by THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, which is the vote that really counts in presidential elections

Florida never sent a legitimate set of electors - that is, a set of electors selected according to Florida law - to the Electoral College.

And, as others have repeatedly pointed out here before, every single credible attempt to count those so-called lost votes STILL ended up with Bush winning. Every-Single-Time.

Statewide recounts show that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida.

Gore played bad politics by not demanding such a recount (in keeping with the Democratic party's generally poor play over the past few decades), and SCOTUS's decision wouldn't have allowed one (because, you know, it's not like the will of the people is supposed to count for anything), but that doesn't change the fact that more people in Florida cast ballots for Gore than Bush. (Not even counting the illegal disenfrachisment of thousands, or the tampering with absentee ballots, or the illegal "butterly" ballots).

Hey- and the nation might yet re-elect a cokaine convict as President, so I guess even compassionate conservative crackheads have a chance.

"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" Limbaugh said on TV, before holding up a picture Chelsea.--Rush Limbaugh

In fact, they actually advocate murdering her:
Here's a real nice piece of work from John Derbyshire, Natonal Review:

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past -- I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble -- recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet -- "let God sort 'em out".)

I prefer George W. Bush sucks.

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that when the President of the United States decides to embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, claiming that there is an imminent threat to his own nation, the burdern of proof is on him to support those claims. Let's see the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. How about those aerial drones that could be used against the US? An Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Some uranium from Africa? Anything?

Theres a website dedicated to just that here. Focussed on GWB and rather undermaintained, though.

The figures speak for themselves. Bush is the most profligate president in the history of the USA. Period.

My protest placard that highlights the budget deficit under Bush keeps going obsolete quicker than my installation of the Mac OS. I'm not kidding either.

Please point me to a link to one recount effort by the press that would have resulted in a Gore victory in Florida.

First, the "recount effort by the press" was actually a survey of the ballots by the "NORC" - the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago, commissioned by several major media companies. The NORC checked and categorized all the ballots. Analysis and presentation of these results was left to the media companies that commissioned the survey. They dropped it like a hot potato in September of 2001. There were some headlines saying Bush would have won. Among the articles with the "Bush wins" headline, some included more detailed information, and it didn't really fit with the headlines. The "more detailed information" is really interesting, and you can see a summary of it here, with some reproductions of articles about the results.

If all you remember are the headlines saying Bush would have won, the actual results may surprise you. Let me be more specific.
If you follow the link, you'll see a graphical summary of the possible recount results, which depend on the standard applied to disputed ballots. It starts by repeating that the official certified result had Bush winning Florida by 537 votes (Bush 2,912,790; Gore 2,912,253). It then shows what would have happened in 5 different possible recount scenarios.
First, if Gore's request for recounts of four specific counties had been granted, he would have still lost, though by a smaller margin-- 225 votes (Bush 2,913,351; Gore 2,913,126).
The second scenario presented is the one that would have obtained if the Supreme Court had not stopped the partial recounts already underway in Florida. Again, Gore loses, by a margin very slightly smaller than the certified result-- 493 votes (Bush 2,916,559; Gore 2,916,066).
So far, two "Bush wins" results, both coming from what Democrats were seeking (Gore's request for a recount of 4 specific counties, plus completion of the partial recounts already in progress). Looks like Bush would win in any conceivable scenario, right? Let's continue.
One recount uses a loose standard for counting a disputed ballot: accepting any dimpled punch card or any mark on an optical scan ballot that indicated a candidate choice, whether it was Gore or Bush. The result? Gore won (there's one recount Gore would have won, responding to your request, but please keep reading), by a very narrow margin of 107 votes (Gore 2,924,695; Bush 2,924,588). But if that were the only Gore victory, one could argue that Gore only would have won with the loosest standards applied for acceptance of disputed ballots. Keep reading...
Given that very loose standard, one could fairly ask for a recount with a very rigid standard. For example, one could ask for a recount where only fully-punched ballot cards (no "hanging chads") and correctly marked optical scan ballots are accepted, again, independent of the candidate chosen. Who'd win that one? Bush? Nope. I'll give you one more guess...

'Dja get it right? Let's check. Here's the result of the recount using that very rigid standard: Gore by 115 (Gore 2,915,245; Bush 2,915,130).
There is one more reasonable standard that could be applied to a recount: one could simply let each county's own standard apply to disputed ballots from that county. Recounting under those conditions yielded President Gore too, by a margin of 171 votes (Gore 2,917,847; Bush 2,918,676).
It's ironic that Gore would have won under the most reasonable standards (intent, perfectly marked/punched ballot, or each county's standards apply to its votes), but would have lost under the weird partial recounts Democrats wanted.
It's also ironic that when the facts showed that Gore would have won the most reasonable possible recounts, the "liberal" media (including the New York Times, a favorite whipping boy of the American Right) presented these data with headlines statin

If you need proof of George Ws cocaine bust, it is mentioned here . The story was confirmed by 3 sources close to the Bush family and has YET TO BE REFUTED. Naturally, such an allegation would be considered slander... but no one has yet to be sued for it. Instead, in one instance, they discredited the author by pointing out he had previously been convicted, not that the story was UNTRUE, but just that he had been convicted. And severe pressure from the Whitehouse was placed on the publisher to pull the book.

Hatfield said it was 3 sources close to Dubya and when pressed, he named Karl Rove.

After the 2000 election several liberal-leaning news organizations went to Floriduh and recounted every vote. They used the most liberal methods they could, counting anything that even remotely looked like a vote for Gore. Guess what? In every recount they did Bush still won.

You can keep telling yourself over and over that Gore won in Floriduh, but you're only kidding yourself. Don't let little things like the facts get in your way.

Oh, you say you didn't hear about the recounts? Of course not; all you listen to and read is biased toward your point of view. It was not widely reported unless you listen to talk radio or watch Fox News. But, you'd never do that, would you?

OK.. I'll start by saying that maybe it is you who need to broaden your horizons a bit and get your news from sources other than Fox News (whose Chairman and CEO was the media director for the George HW Bush campaign in 1988 and the creator and executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show) and heavily Republican-leaning talk radio. You yourself state that johnkerry.com isn't exactly un-biased (sic). Do you think Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are? I am not a Democrat, so that's not why I'm saying this. I'm saying it because the very facts you sarcastically say we shouldn't let get in our way don't support your position.

Take a peek at this. It's a presentation of the results of the recount. It starts by repeating that Bush won the official certified result by 537 votes (Bush 2,912,790; Gore 2,912,253). It then shows what would have happened in 5 different possible recount scenarios.
First, if Gore's request for recounts of four specific counties had been granted, he would have still lost, though by a smaller margin-- 225 votes (Bush 2,913,351; Gore 2,913,126).
The second scenario presented is if the Supreme Court had not stopped the partial recounts already underway in Florida. Again, Gore loses, by a margin very slightly smaller than the certified result-- 493 votes (Bush 2,916,559; Gore 2,916,066).
So far, two "Bush wins" results, both coming from what Democrats were seeking (Gore's request for a recount of 4 specific counties, plus completion of the partial recounts already in progress). Looks like Bush would win in any conceivable scenario, right? Let's continue.
First, they could have used "the most liberal methods they could, counting anything that even remotely looked like a vote for Gore" (as you put it), but they didn't. They did do one recount using a similar but fair standard, accepting any dimpled punch card or any mark on an optical scan ballot that indicated a candidate choice, whether it was Gore or Bush. The result? Gore won (so much for "In every recount they did Bush still won), by a very narrow margin of 107 votes (Gore 2,924,695; Bush 2,924,588). But if that were the only Gore victory, your argument, while wrong on some details, would still have a foundation of truth. Let's continue.
Given that very loose standard, one could fairly ask for a recount with a very rigid standard. For example, one could ask for a recount where only fully-punched ballot cards and correctly marked optical scan ballots are accepted, again, independent of the candidate chosen. Who'd win that one? Bush? Nope. I'll give you one more guess...

'Dja get it right? Let's check. Here's the result of the recount using that very rigid standard: Gore by 115 (Gore 2,915,245; Bush 2,915,130).
Hmmm... looks like your "recounting anything that even remotely looked like a vote for Gore" has been debunked by those inconvenient facts you mentioned, as has "In every recount they did Bush still won."
There is one more reasonable standard that could be applied to a recount: one could simply let each county's own standard apply to disputed ballots from that county. Recounting under those conditions yielded President Gore too, by a margin of 171 votes (Gore 2

Here's a good site and here's a lousy site about Bush lies. I am sure there are more.

that you choose to ignore the fact that we are WW3, against the exact same sort of fascist minds that we were in 60 years ago is not Pres. Bush's fault.

Do you mean fascist minds like that of Franco in Spain who kept ruling well past WW2? US still hasn't recognized the volunteers who valiantly tried to stop his takeover of power in the Spanish Civil War by granting them veterans' rights.

that ... the frogs and krauts ... agreed that saddam ... had WMD's...

Well, it looks as though the "frogs" and the "krauts" were wrong about that.;)

it is the same religious fanaticism that drives the islamicists to blow up buildings with airplanes.

Yes, all people who have opinions different from yours are driven by them to blow up buildings with airplanes.;)

Check this graph out when the little green men let you come back. If you're interested in looking at some actual facts, that is.

Is it just me, or do an awful lot of the hardcore war on drug politicians have an awful lot of drugs up nose in their past?

Well, I actually think our two party system is the biggest load of crap ever. In business two competitors is still effectively a monopoly (just look at island hopping flights in Hawaii), so why don't people understand that the same's true in politics. Just ignore the party labels and see what the candidates say, or better yet, what they do. Or is that too hard?

As for links, the convienant side effect of cnn altering stories is that the old stories I'm thinking of are, well, altered. A newer story does dig some recent ones up, which I guess just proves that the media is getting a little fed up with him. And a quick google search pulls up tons of older ones. Here's a sampling:

Liberty is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every person. And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it.
White House, Mar. 6, 2003

Events aren't moved by blind change and chance [but by] the hand of a just and faithful God

It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values.
Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2002


I find the third one particularly ironic. You might not consider them shocking, but I personally don't like my Presidents acting like ministers. They call it a podium instead of a pulpit for a reason. If there's one thing reading the Crucible in high school was supposed to teach us it's that religion and government don't mix (along with giving a healthy critique of McCarthyism). But since you seemed quite ready to jump all over me I bet it'd be easier for you to not think about it and just go ahead and attack me.

George W. Bush has an IQ of 91 and he has no trouble running Linux.

1. BUSH LIED ON "MEET THE PRESS," 11/21/99

TIM RUSSERT: If someone came to you and said, "Governor, I'm sorry, I'm going to go public with some information." What do you do?

GOV. BUSH: If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now. My background has been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters. Tim, we can talk about this all morning.

2. BUSH LIED TO "DALLAS MORNING NEWS," 1998

"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning
News reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been
arrested. 'He said, "After 1968? No."'" New Republic

3. BUSH LIED TO CBS, 1999.

"Bush has often acknowledged past mistakes, but CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan reports that in a 1999 interview with CBS station WBZ in Boston, he denied there was any so-called smoking gun." CBS

The statement to the Dallas Morning News report in the National Review is the most damning. Remember, it wasn't the sex that Clinton was impeached for, it was the lying. This is just too close to the election for the first shoe the drop, you don't want the second shoe to drop AFTER he's the ruler of the free world do you?