God bless the U.S.

[Bayou Bum]

So, instead of admitting that Bush actually won the election by a slim margin, liberals would rather claim that Gore won the election but they sat on their asses and did nothing to keep Bush from taking power illegally? I guess that is typical liberal philosophy, peace at all cost and the law is just a set of guidelines. Pathetic really!

[lindajdunn]

I think Bayou Bum was saying that after-the-fact recounts conducted by media organizations using the methodology requested by Gore still resulted in Bush narrowly winning Florida.

Certain other methodologies, if used, would have resulted in a Gore win.

Here's a Wiki page on the media recounts.

--Philistine

Thanks. I'd not followed that at the time and really didn't have that much interest in the argument other than my personal preference for eliminating the electoral college.

As a resident of Indiana -- which was always neglected in the elections -- it was rather... interesting... to be included this year.

[Inquartata]

I think Bayou Bum was saying that after-the-fact recounts conducted by media organizations using the methodology requested by Gore still resulted in Bush narrowly winning Florida.

Shhh! Cognitive dissonance is never appreciated. The meme is that Bush "stole" the election, and the meme is all that matters.

Certain other methodologies, if used, would have resulted in a Gore win.

Yes. I mean, what if aliens had gone back in time and abducted all the Bush voters just before voting, for instance.

There is always SOME methodology which will justify a person's existing beliefs...

[Hauptman]

Shhh! Cognitive dissonance is never appreciated. The meme is that Bush "stole" the election, and the meme is all that matters.



Yes. I mean, what if aliens had gone back in time and abducted all the Bush voters just before voting, for instance.

There is always SOME methodology which will justify a person's existing beliefs...

Now don't be TOO dismissive...

If the Florida recount had gone through and Bush still came out the winner then no one would be having these discussions. Of course that never happened because the Supreme Court stepped in where they shouldn't have been, and made a decision based on very shaky legal grounds, and by a very slim margin.

Anyone who states that Bush was the clear winner is just as whacky as those saying Bush stole the election.

[thereom4]

If the Florida recount had gone through and Bush still came out the winner then no one would be having these discussions.

Exactly. This is all I'm saying. Thanks for saying for me.

[Phaeton]

So, instead of admitting that Bush actually won the election by a slim margin, liberals would rather claim that Gore won the election but they sat on their asses and did nothing to keep Bush from taking power illegally? I guess that is typical liberal philosophy, peace at all cost and the law is just a set of guidelines. Pathetic really!

I'll bite...

The SC decision in favor of Bush doesn't look good. It doesn't effectively set a precedent, and it was a very broad interpretation of of the equal protection clause by justices that weren't accustomed to doing so. The reasoning IMHO seems more than a little bit flawed. Either way, this is one of the few times in history that the SC has had a chance to play such a major role in the composition of another branch of the government. There really wasn't a historical precedent for what they had done. Dealing the President and electoral conflicts has traditionally been the job of the House.

Combine this with general public disdain for the electoral college, a polarized nation, a president that by all accounts severely changed up a number of things within this country and it is understandable why many people on the left, including myself, were so bothered by the results of Bush v Gore.

That said, what would you have had the "evil liberals" do? The SC spoke. It was the law. It was done the way it was done. I think that a full state recount was in order. I think that Florida, run by a Republican, was plagued with electoral difficulties, had been for years, and continues to be, and nothing was done about it. It turns out those difficulties hurt more heavily democratic minorities than other people. I don't think it was intentional, but I don't think it was fair and I don't think it helps represent national sentiment.

I think that the nation didn't break out into riots or mass conflict after Bush v Gore is a testament to how great this country is. It is a testament how one party can hand power to another and how we work within a peaceful political system.

Look, I'm trying to be rational. I'm so damned tired of people using the terms "liberals" and "conservatives" as blanket terms to build straw men, set up hasty generalizations, and spout hyperbole. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are made up of vast constituencies, and the majority of both parties (the Republican party less and less so) are made up of not ideologues, but moderate rational people.

So to a self identified "liberal" please don't preach to me about "liberal philosophy." Let me explain where I stand.

I am not a strict constructionist. I believe that within the legal framework of this country that modifications need to be made. I feel the electoral college does not serve a significant purpose today. I feel that the SC made a decision that I disagree with.

I do agree that the Democratic party did not field a strong candidate in fielding Gore. I do agree that ever since Reagan the Democratic party has been in shambles. I did not myself personally like Clinton.

What bothers me isn't that Bush won. Or won twice. That's the will of the people. The people got what they deserved. IMHO we screwed OURSELVES over. The party lost its way for a while. What bothers me is that I feel the SC overstepped its bounds.

So really...I don't think that disliking Bush v Gore is a sign of mental infirmity. I think it's a valid opinion, and one among many that make our country a nation of compromise, a moderate, balanced, and stable nation, and one of the most effective in the world.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

If things were right, it would be a declared war, because president hussein and his liberal regime in congress would have the spine to declare it.

You seem to forget how they have been trying to destroy Israel for the past 30+ years, and now they're within 3 years of getting the weapons necessary to do it. Do you want to stand by and let another Holocaust happen? And let the Holy Land be descecrated by terrorist scum?

Seriously, have you ever been to Israel? If you ever get the balls to do it, you'll know what it's like. I've been there a few times, and I know what it's like to be on the front lines-they live it every day. While I'm not in the military, I know many people who are and my church supports them (we have a penpal program, donation program, and job placement program). What have YOU ever done for our troops?

When you and people like you declare that Obama MUST do... whatever... don't you think it takes a spine to completely ignore you? If he was truly spineless, wouldn't he do whatever he was told to do?

People who are experts in Iran basically say that the US Gov't officially stating from the top that we support Mir-Hossein Mousavi would be one of the best things we could do for Ahmadinejad. Even if we wanted to intervene, there is enough chaos there right now that it doesn't make much sense. Ahmadinejad could be out, as well as the current Supreme Leader, within a couple years. Why would we invade without at least seeing how this particular event plays out?

My job is helping military families find and pay for childcare. This is not relevant. Perhaps a more relevant question is how familiar are you with Arab and Persian cultures? Have you talked to someone of Iranian decent and found out how they and their family were affected by the Revolution? Know anyone who is Arabic or Muslim? How it affects their life, their worldview?

[Hauptman]

What some people have forgotten is that the U.S. DID intervene in setting up the gov't of Iran. And does anyone remember how that turned out?

I think we all know who would get the answer to this question right, and who will get it wrong.

[Sins of the Fleche]

Well, the US did prop up the Iranian Shah's "government" for a long time since he was an ardent anti-communist, and he had...oh what's it called...oh yeah, oil. But the Ayatollah's revolutionary "government" in Iran since the end of the 70's is all home-grown. But we did set up a guy named Saddam Hussein to fight said Iranian revolutionary government.

Sorry to nit pick ya Hauptman, but I just recently had this same discussion with some friends. Your point though, is dead on. Every time we intervene, it's not exactly for the natives' best interests.

[jeff]

SotF, Hauptman may be referring to Mossadeq, a democratically elected PM who the US overthrew largely at the behest of the British (to protect their Anglo Iranian oil company). I just yesterday saw an article referring to anti-British expressions from Iran's Supreme Leader. To this very day some Iranians believe that the US is merely the catspaw manipulated from behind the scenes by the evil Brits. Despite our being Great Satan, of course!

Back to the elections: Besides the deeply immoral and imperialist position that we should invade another country and settle their election despite lack of a casus belli or even being asked to do so by the opposing faction: it not only would be wrong, but it would be the most counter-productive thing we could do.

Any government we put in place, or any politician that came to power due to our invading the country or other intervention - including direct verbal or diplomatic support, would be viewed as a puppet of the USA, and devoid of any legitemacy. Even the appearance that the US directly supported an Iranian politician would make him unsupportable and end his career. Any intervention by the US would immediately erase all the partisan battles within Iran, and all would unite against the meddler or invader - us. Not only is this a bad idea, it's a dumb idea.

Obama and other Western leaders have to walk a fine line of supporting democracy in Iran without giving a weapon to the Mullahs to unify the country and the hard liner. The best gift we could give them - or the declared "winner" - would be overt action. An actual invasion by the US - what a horrible idea. Americans and Iranians would die (and I consider deeply immoral the suggestion from a military age youth that men and women of the same age should go die, while he stays safely at home. We've had enough bad policy from chicken hawks in the prior administration) and then there inevitably would be an occupation that would require years to get out of, and guerrilla attacks that would cost thousands of lives. To even suggest it is to ignore the lessons of the last 5 years, at the very least.

As it is: freedom has to be earned by the Iranian people, not conveyed by an outside party. This is a momentous occasion: it looks like the hard liners in Iran wanted Ahmadinejad to appear to win by a large margin so he could continue in the track he's taken on the strength of a "mandate". So, it appears that they grossly stole the election. By overplaying their hand, they may have triggered a new revolution in the Islamic Republic that might actually result in the freedom they obviously want. There are thousands of people out in the street, risking their lives. Maybe they'll succeed, or maybe there will be a Tienanmen-style clampdown, but I applaud their courage.

[Sins of the Fleche]

Ah, then I stand corrected. My apologies Hauptman. I learn something new every day.

[Zilverzmurfen]

...They have a mad man running their country, a true mad man.

LOL

And what would you call George Bush..?

[jeff]

How about: a somewhat dim and incurious man, who would have made a pretty good US Baseball commissioner.

Really, Z. Don't you distinguish a difference between somebody who viewed the world in simplistic terms (due to which, IMO, great harm was done), and a bigot famed for his denial of genocide (which is illegal in some European countries) while calling for a new one and trying to build the nuclear weapons to do it? And who is now the beneficiary of an (apparently) stolen election and is violently suppressing dissent and news coverage?

[thereom4]

LOL

And what would you call George Bush..?

Former President Bush

[I_luv_saber]

I lol'd

[thereom4]

I lol'd

The setup was there so I had to.

[Inquartata]

If the Florida recount had gone through and Bush still came out the winner then no one would be having these discussions.

I think that you very seriously underestimate the tenacity of political partisans...

I think we'd have seen what we have just recently seen in Minnesota, and more.

the Supreme Court stepped in where they shouldn't have been

Someone---and it wasn't the Bush campaign---took the issue to the courts. Once that happened it was a foregone conclusion that any decision was going to be appealed as far as it could until one party or the other got the answer it wanted. That is just how our legal system works. SCOTUS didn't have to grant cert, but that's not IMO the same as saying that it shouldn't have...

Anyone who states that Bush was the clear winner is just as whacky as those saying Bush stole the election.

In your opinion. You forgot to add that part.

Again, several groups DID a recount afterward, and found that under the rules requested by the Gore campaign Bush would indeed have won anyway.

How much more do you require for "clear"?

LOL

And what would you call George Bush..?

Dubya?

[Hauptman]

I think that you very seriously underestimate the tenacity of political partisans...

I think we'd have seen what we have just recently seen in Minnesota, and more.



Someone---and it wasn't the Bush campaign---took the issue to the courts. Once that happened it was a foregone conclusion that any decision was going to be appealed as far as it could until one party or the other got the answer it wanted. That is just how our legal system works. SCOTUS didn't have to grant cert, but that's not IMO the same as saying that it shouldn't have...




In your opinion. You forgot to add that part.

Again, several groups DID a recount afterward, and found that under the rules requested by the Gore campaign Bush would indeed have won anyway.

How much more do you require for "clear"?




Dubya?

Your cynicism aside, if Gore had gotten the recount he requested and lost then this conversation would not be happening.

As far as whether the Supreme Court should have intervened, I believe that they did not have standing, but I'm willing say IMO.

As for whether Bush was CLEARLY the winner, regardless of the count Gore requested, a subsequent FULL count would have made Gore the winner. The election was clearly un-clear. But if it was clear to you then maybe you can recommend your optometrist (or psychologist?).

[Sins of the Fleche]

Eh, just because I'm a trouble-maker, I'm gonna lob another grenade into this firestorm: does anyone else kinda find it a little odd people still have contentious arguments over Florida 2000 and its questions of legality, but not many people mention the whole ACORN scandal from this past election? Granted Florida decided the election, whereas ACORN probably didn't change the outcome of things. The Florida recounts and staying orders where all legal (officially so anyways, in people's opinions, well, that's up to you ), but ACORN was clearly committing illegal acts, but no one talks about that anymore. Feel free to discuss.

[Inquartata]

Your cynicism aside, if Gore had gotten the recount he requested and lost then this conversation would not be happening.

You are very certain...but how, exactly, can you know what would have happened?

As for whether Bush was CLEARLY the winner, regardless of the count Gore requested, a subsequent FULL count would have made Gore the winner.

Yes, a "full count" of what were in some cases some pretty questionable ballots...

Is this really the standard you want to erect?

The election was clearly un-clear. But if it was clear to you then maybe you can recommend your optometrist (or psychologist?).

Certainly. His name is Dr. D. O. Logic. ( The D. O. stands for "Dispassionate Objectivity". )

does anyone else kinda find it a little odd people still have contentious arguments over Florida 2000 and its questions of legality, but not many people mention the whole ACORN scandal from this past election?

Only those who recognize the liberal bias in media, academe and government. Those who do not will not find the situations at ALL comparable, and will only direct you to "Republican vote fraud" instead ( as if "well, they did it too only worse" were somehow exculpatory or something ).

BTW, there may be a move afoot to change the name of the organization in order to escape any negative connotations it may have acquired and to rebrand itself. Thus far, however, this is only being reported in the conservative---I mean, of course, wacko---press, so feel free to assume that nothing is really happening...