Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> > For these reasons, public opinion turned in favor of the GOP and against
> > the Democrats because of perceptions of ethical behavior and lack of
> > sportsmanship. By persisting in claiming they were robbed of the
> > election, despite extensive recounts using the same election day
> > standards by independent organizations, the Democrats don't seem to
> > realize they lose more credibility, so polarized are they by the
> > propaganda generated perception that the election of Bush will destroy
> > the country (likely even more than people like myself felt similarly
> > about an election of Gore).
>
> Wrong. The Republicans only followed the law and election procedures where
> they wanted to. They rejected the law that required postmarks on all
> absentee ballots because the military votes did not have postmarks. They
> counted these votes "to be fair" even though it violated the law.
Specifically because PRIOR court precedents said that military ballots
did not have to have post marks on them. Therefore, they did NOT violate
the law.
>
> They also allowed the Republican party to "correct" 20,000 absentee ballots
> that did not include the required identification numbers on them. By law,
> these votes should have been excluded. By law, these votes should not have
> been in possession of Republicans outside the election system. By law,
> these votes should not have been altered. But the Republicans did it
> anyway.
a) the 'corrections' were not in the way the voters voted, but in that
the ballots were supposed to be printed with their voter ID numbers on
them already. Most voters voting in absentia have no means of
determining their voter ID numbers, it is the responsibility of the
state to provide them. To penalize the voters for the actions of the
state is an illegal disenfranchisement, as the courts ruled.
b) the ballots were never outside the election system. The GOP provided
staff to write in the voter ID numbers on government premises.
c) Votes were NEVER altered.
>
> The Republicans also fought "for" recounts in some counties where they
> thought they would improve, like Volusia county, and "against" recounts in
> other counties where they thought they would win.
Yes, but in no instance did they insist on ballot counting rules that
deviated from those in place on election day, as I said before and you
ignored.
>
> The Republicans were not any more sporting or ethical than Democrats. Both
> parties fought contradictory legal battles in different counties depending
> on which way they wanted the vote to go. Both parties argued for the
> existing recount and ballot laws in some counties while simultaneously
> arguing against these laws in other counties.
>
> I am constantly amazed by the perception on both sides that only the other
> side played unfairly. I see neither side acting superior to the other in
> the Florida elections.
>
> One side note: Later studies show that many other states had worse problems
> with uncounted ballots. It was only Florida's sunshine law and pivotal role
> in the election that put the focus on Florida. Most state elections are
> just as screwed up, but the media does not have access to the counting
> process in those states, and there was not as much attention given to those
> states.
Yes, somewhere between 4-6 million ballots were thrown out, including a
couple hundred thousand alone in the Illinois County that is home to
Gore's campaign chairman, old 'Two Vote' Daley.
>
> > The spoilsport antics of the rent-a-riot left wing at the inauguration
> > and since have continued to help Bush by casting the left as too
> > immature to lead, and too shrilly extremist to represent the people.
>
> This is too funny. The Republicans did the same thing in Miami when they
> flew in paid participants for their riot. Both sides do the exact same
> thing, and yet most people only recall the poor behavior on one side.
Show me footage of a republican 'riot'. Only one instance did they stage
a peaceful protest, outside the Dade recount places, where the
republicans in the room noticed no disturbances. The democrats claimed
it was a 'riot' only because they didn't like the fact that someone was
demonstrating 'against' them, which was 'obviously' staged by 'racist,
bigoted, sexist, right-wing wackos'.
This is one more instance of a liberal claiming a crime occurs only
because they 'felt intimidated', not that any actually intimidating
behavior actually occured. Much like blacks protesting police checking
for outstanding warrants on the election day. Since felons can't vote,
its obvious that only those who are felons should be worried about their
ability to commit vote fraud being impaired.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT