Science > Abortion > The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2003 10:42:35 PM |
| Object: |
The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
No changes have been applied to anything below this note.
This was prepared precisely as stated therein. As November, 2004
approaches, we need to REMEMBER this incident. If the media
had followed up with it, as it SHOULD have, it would have been
more monumental than Watergate.
It is to the media's everlasting shame that they DIDN'T!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS
BOMBSHELL !!!
If THIS scandal gets swept under the rug, it'll be completely
inexplicable. THIS one is MAJOR!!!
ABC News documented it on its evening news tonight
(Thanksgiving Day, 11/23/2000).
Capitalized words in the quotes below are not "shouts." They
denote inflective emphasis of those words as they were spoken
in the report.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "At the time, it SEEMED spontaneous -- angry
residents denied the right to see their votes recounted. But the
REALITY is, it was an ORCHESTRATED Republican protest.
And MOST were not even FROM here."
<<<Camera crew questions a female protester... >>>
REPORTER: "Are you local? Are you... ?"
NARRATOR: "Her guide, a Republican public relations officer,
cut THAT conversation short."
<<< Her guide takes her by the elbow and whisks
her away from the crew before she can say more
than a few words in response. >>>
NARRATOR: "And SO it has been, ALL week long. A public
relations effort that has not ALWAYS been so public. Camped out in a
motor home, in the middle of the media staging area, you would THINK
they would want to TALK about their mission."
<<< Reporter attempts to talk to a man in the RV, who
responds to him only briefly from behind the door,
before closing it in the reporter's face. >>>
MAN IN RV: "It's a Bush operation."
REPORTER: "It's a BUSH operation?
MAN IN RV: "Yep."
REPORTER: "What goes ON inside this trailer?"
MAN IN RV: "Oh... can't talk to you right now."
<<< Man closes door in reporter's face >>>
NARRATOR: "In ALL, an army of 75 operatives came to Miami
to SHAPE public opinion. 'To help the media,' they said."
<<< Reporter walks alongside one of them, trying to
interview him... >>>
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "And we provide a service for you
for surrogates who you'll want to speak to..."
<<< Scene shifts to an outdoor crowd of protestors, many
armed with professionally-printed signs identical to the
earlier Democratic campaign signs -- except that instead
of "Gore Lieberman," *these* read "Sore Loserman."
Several of them were wearing *printed* signs on their
backs that read, "Enough is Enough." >>>
NARRATOR: "But they ALSO got involved in leading demon-
strations. And were EVEN willing to dress up in seasonal outfits
to provide so-called 'protestor color,' for local news reports."
<<< Camera shows a person dressed in a turkey costume,
with another person next to him/her holding a 3' x 4' sign
reading, "STUFF THE TURKEY NOT THE BALLOT BOX."
Many protestors gathered around them, holding *printed*
signs reading, "Gore. Let our MILITARY VOTE." >>>
NARRATOR: "In the end, it apparently made a difference.
'Intimidation,' some called it."
DAVID LEAHY, Miami-Dade Election Supervisor:
"If what I had envisioned [had] worked out, and there were no
objections, we'd be up there now, counting."
= = = = = = = = =
NOTE: THAT statement by Leahy is KEY!!! Later, he tried to
to backpedal on it! But FORTUNATELY, the truth was
already out -- with THIS statement (above).
= = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "They are not. And that Bush operations
trailer -- has moved on. [This is] Bill Redecker, ABC News, Miami."
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The above is an exact transcription of the report, which I had
videotaped from the broadcast. VERY surprisingly, since this is such
an OBVIOUS subversion of the election process, ABC News has NOT
yet put this report on its abcnews.com website -- even though this
evening's OTHER stories ARE detailed there. (????)
If Gore loses this election, there will be three key factors:
(1) Nader threw the election. (A circumstance, but a legal one.)
(2) A fouled-up ballot in Palm Beach County, and no *concerted*
attempt to obtain a county-wide revote to correct that.
(Legal, but very unfortunate.)
(3) The above DIRTY TRICK. (Probably legal, according to the
LETTER of the law. But it STINKS to high heaven, and proves
that the lessons of Watergate were LOST on the Republicans,
who just PROVED themselves to be lower than snakes.)
What a SHAME for America if BUSH should win, in light of this.
And if he DOES, we should remind him for the next 4 years that -- not
only did he get in via the dinosaur of the electoral college (since
he LOST the POPULAR vote) -- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT
"I watched the whole thing like a hawk, and that's totally
consistent with the news footage I saw.
"And now, of course, we know Ken Lay paid for the whole
thing. You know, that Ann Richards supporter.
"I watched those bastards storm the corridors of the
building on TV, in nice shirts, hollering like monkeys, in
return for all-expense-paid Florida vacations."
-- Chas. 'Mark' Bee <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>, July 12, 2002
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
Bush is the APPOINTED President.
And the Court ran roughshod OVER the will of the people, to do
that. The REPUBLICAN-appointed, PARTISAN Justices, ONLY,
accomplished that INFAMOUS, SHAMEFUL and INEXCUSABLE deed.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
18 Jul 2003 06:51:42 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:3f256bdb.23765000@netnews.mchsi.com...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
No changes have been applied to anything below this note.
This was prepared precisely as stated therein. As November, 2004
approaches, we need to REMEMBER this incident. If the media
had followed up with it, as it SHOULD have, it would have been
more monumental than Watergate.
It is to the media's everlasting shame that they DIDN'T!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS
BOMBSHELL !!!
If THIS scandal gets swept under the rug, it'll be completely
inexplicable. THIS one is MAJOR!!!
ABC News documented it on its evening news tonight
(Thanksgiving Day, 11/23/2000).
Capitalized words in the quotes below are not "shouts." They
denote inflective emphasis of those words as they were spoken
in the report.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "At the time, it SEEMED spontaneous -- angry
residents denied the right to see their votes recounted. But the
REALITY is, it was an ORCHESTRATED Republican protest.
And MOST were not even FROM here."
<<<Camera crew questions a female protester... >>>
REPORTER: "Are you local? Are you... ?"
NARRATOR: "Her guide, a Republican public relations officer,
cut THAT conversation short."
<<< Her guide takes her by the elbow and whisks
her away from the crew before she can say more
than a few words in response. >>>
NARRATOR: "And SO it has been, ALL week long. A public
relations effort that has not ALWAYS been so public. Camped out in a
motor home, in the middle of the media staging area, you would THINK
they would want to TALK about their mission."
<<< Reporter attempts to talk to a man in the RV, who
responds to him only briefly from behind the door,
before closing it in the reporter's face. >>>
MAN IN RV: "It's a Bush operation."
REPORTER: "It's a BUSH operation?
MAN IN RV: "Yep."
REPORTER: "What goes ON inside this trailer?"
MAN IN RV: "Oh... can't talk to you right now."
<<< Man closes door in reporter's face >>>
NARRATOR: "In ALL, an army of 75 operatives came to Miami
to SHAPE public opinion. 'To help the media,' they said."
<<< Reporter walks alongside one of them, trying to
interview him... >>>
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "And we provide a service for you
for surrogates who you'll want to speak to..."
<<< Scene shifts to an outdoor crowd of protestors, many
armed with professionally-printed signs identical to the
earlier Democratic campaign signs -- except that instead
of "Gore Lieberman," *these* read "Sore Loserman."
Several of them were wearing *printed* signs on their
backs that read, "Enough is Enough." >>>
NARRATOR: "But they ALSO got involved in leading demon-
strations. And were EVEN willing to dress up in seasonal outfits
to provide so-called 'protestor color,' for local news reports."
<<< Camera shows a person dressed in a turkey costume,
with another person next to him/her holding a 3' x 4' sign
reading, "STUFF THE TURKEY NOT THE BALLOT BOX."
Many protestors gathered around them, holding *printed*
signs reading, "Gore. Let our MILITARY VOTE." >>>
NARRATOR: "In the end, it apparently made a difference.
'Intimidation,' some called it."
DAVID LEAHY, Miami-Dade Election Supervisor:
"If what I had envisioned [had] worked out, and there were no
objections, we'd be up there now, counting."
= = = = = = = = =
NOTE: THAT statement by Leahy is KEY!!! Later, he tried to
to backpedal on it! But FORTUNATELY, the truth was
already out -- with THIS statement (above).
= = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "They are not. And that Bush operations
trailer -- has moved on. [This is] Bill Redecker, ABC News, Miami."
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The above is an exact transcription of the report, which I had
videotaped from the broadcast. VERY surprisingly, since this is such
an OBVIOUS subversion of the election process, ABC News has NOT
yet put this report on its abcnews.com website -- even though this
evening's OTHER stories ARE detailed there. (????)
If Gore loses this election, there will be three key factors:
(1) Nader threw the election. (A circumstance, but a legal one.)
(2) A fouled-up ballot in Palm Beach County, and no *concerted*
attempt to obtain a county-wide revote to correct that.
(Legal, but very unfortunate.)
The street runs BOTH ways.
(3) The above DIRTY TRICK. (Probably legal, according to the
LETTER of the law. But it STINKS to high heaven, and proves
that the lessons of Watergate were LOST on the Republicans,
who just PROVED themselves to be lower than snakes.)
(4) The U.S. Electoral College elected Bush according to the rules of the
election.
What a SHAME for America if BUSH should win, in light of this.
And if he DOES, we should remind him for the next 4 years that -- not
only did he get in via the dinosaur of the electoral college
The SAME "dinosaur" that Gore used.
(since
he LOST the POPULAR vote)
Irrelevant.
-- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
Such trick being?
= = = = = = = = = = = =
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT
"I watched the whole thing like a hawk, and that's totally
consistent with the news footage I saw.
"And now, of course, we know Ken Lay paid for the whole
thing. You know, that Ann Richards supporter.
"I watched those bastards storm the corridors of the
building on TV, in nice shirts, hollering like monkeys, in
return for all-expense-paid Florida vacations."
-- Chas. 'Mark' Bee <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>, July 12, 2002
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
NOT according to the Electoral College. Aint' they the ones who elect the
President?
Bush is the APPOINTED President.
And the Court ran roughshod OVER the will of the people, to do
that. The REPUBLICAN-appointed, PARTISAN Justices, ONLY,
accomplished that INFAMOUS, SHAMEFUL and INEXCUSABLE deed.
The court appointed no one; they simply ruled that law had been properly
followed......... next.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
18 Jul 2003 04:55:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:51:42 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
SNIP
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f256bdb.23765000@netnews.mchsi.com...
(since
he LOST the POPULAR vote)
Irrelevant.
-- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
Such trick being?
The systematic disenfranchisement of THOUSANDS of black voters -- a
crime to which Jeb Bush has stipulated and promises to correct in the
future,
= = = = = = = = = = = =
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT
"I watched the whole thing like a hawk, and that's totally
consistent with the news footage I saw.
"And now, of course, we know Ken Lay paid for the whole
thing. You know, that Ann Richards supporter.
"I watched those bastards storm the corridors of the
building on TV, in nice shirts, hollering like monkeys, in
return for all-expense-paid Florida vacations."
-- Chas. 'Mark' Bee <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>, July 12, 2002
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
NOT according to the Electoral College. Aint' they the ones who elect the
President?
Yes indeed, archaic and irrelevant but still on the books -- HOWEVER
if the Florida votes had been actually counted and had the many
thousands of disenfranchised blacks been restored to the rolls Florida
would have gone to Gore and the Electoral College would have confirmed
his election.
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
Together for 47 years
and still
Strangers in the eyes of the law
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
19 Jul 2003 01:57:54 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<NMKdneiL84BjWoWiU-KYvw@comcast.com>...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote
How did Bush steal it?
The critical piece was tossing 50,000 (mostly) black
people off the Florida voter rolls.
For Presidential elections (and only Presidential elections),
the Democrats can expect upwards of 90% of the black
vote. Throw 10,000 black people off the voter rolls (deny
them their right to vote), and, even with a 20% voter
turnout, and you just cost Al Gore about 1,500 votes in an
election that was decided by a few hundred.
Any racial group so indebted to their DNC plantation masters doling
out their daily bread and yearly hate crimes legislative fix, and to
the tune of 90%, SHOULD be thrown off the voter rolls! If whites voted
in these same patterns, there wouldn't be a black dog catcher in the
country, much less a black congressional caucus. (Cordially,
Marie)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
21 Jul 2003 10:17:27 PM |
|
|
"Marie A." <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote
[...] SHOULD be thrown off the voter rolls!
Do us all a favor and buy a vibrator, sir.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans (was Re: ...) |
22 Jul 2003 09:19:50 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<OnednShJMseiKIGiXTWJkg@comcast.com>...
Does anyone actually like Bush?
Seriously. Does anyone like Bush, the real Bush?
Why does it matter? Does anyone know Bush personally? Is there any
good reason you would have for not liking him if you don't know him?
You may not like his policies, and that is your right. However, why
must you make it personal? Kind of sounds like a petty problem on
your end.
Not the myth, not the partisan propaganda, but the
real George Dubya Bush. Does anyone like him?
There's plenty who support Bush...
No, there are plenty who support Bush and the cabinet. Which includes
republicans and democrats.
no doubt about that.
There's no shortage of people who defend Bush. But, do
any of them honestly like him?
If so, why do they cling to some fantasy "Bush" that was
never a cocaine-snorting party animal...
So he partied? I thought liberals didn't care about drug usage.
a fantasy Bush
who didn't a desert his national guard unit... a fantasy
Bush who didn't tell multiple lies in his state of the union
address...
Can you prove that "he" personally lied knowing it was a lie?
Answer: No
a fantasy that didn't return our government to
deficit spending in August of 2001, after swearing up &
down that he wouldn't.... a fantasy Bush that won the 2000
election fair & square?
Please, keep the ranting up on the economy because in a year or year
and a half, I want to make sure you are still around so I can
personally serve you a plate of crow.
Oh, speaking of the 2000 election, you never did address the democrats
trying to sabatoge the military absentee votes. Gee, that was real
fair and square for our men and women overseas wasn't it.
There is a GOOD reason why most of our military supports republicans.
Can you figure it out?
It seems to me that nobody is more ashamed of "President"
Bush than the Republicans.
They deny that Bush exists with their every breath, insisting
on some fictional character in his place.
Tell you what,
Show us a GREAT politician, free and clear of any lies, wrong doing,
scandals...anything
The hookers in D.C. are fair and square, they take cash from all
politician.
Ask Heidi Fleist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans (was Re: ...) |
22 Jul 2003 11:31:05 AM |
|
|
For some reason, on 22 Jul 2003 07:19:50 -0700,
(osprey) came around and stated thus:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<OnednShJMseiKIGiXTWJkg@comcast.com>...
Does anyone actually like Bush?
Seriously. Does anyone like Bush, the real Bush?
Why does it matter? Does anyone know Bush personally? Is there any
good reason you would have for not liking him if you don't know him?
You may not like his policies, and that is your right. However, why
must you make it personal? Kind of sounds like a petty problem on
your end.
Not the myth, not the partisan propaganda, but the
real George Dubya Bush. Does anyone like him?
There's plenty who support Bush...
No, there are plenty who support Bush and the cabinet. Which includes
republicans and democrats.
no doubt about that.
There's no shortage of people who defend Bush. But, do
any of them honestly like him?
If so, why do they cling to some fantasy "Bush" that was
never a cocaine-snorting party animal...
So he partied? I thought liberals didn't care about drug usage.
We care about hypocrites who party relentlessly, get arrested for DWI
and then further a "war on drugs" agenda. Are you capable of seeing
how much harm could come from that? I didn't think so.
a fantasy Bush
who didn't a desert his national guard unit... a fantasy
Bush who didn't tell multiple lies in his state of the union
address...
Can you prove that "he" personally lied knowing it was a lie?
Answer: No
WRONG. We can prove he lied. Give us a while. After all we've been
patiently waiting for those WMD's to surface.
a fantasy that didn't return our government to
deficit spending in August of 2001, after swearing up &
down that he wouldn't.... a fantasy Bush that won the 2000
election fair & square?
Please, keep the ranting up on the economy because in a year or year
and a half, I want to make sure you are still around so I can
personally serve you a plate of crow.
Wannna bet?
Oh, speaking of the 2000 election, you never did address the democrats
trying to sabatoge the military absentee votes. Gee, that was real
fair and square for our men and women overseas wasn't it.
There is a GOOD reason why most of our military supports republicans.
Can you figure it out?
Yeah, the military serves as a de facto political indoctrination camp.
Something we on the left are going to fix VERY soon.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
It seems to me that nobody is more ashamed of "President"
Bush than the Republicans.
They deny that Bush exists with their every breath, insisting
on some fictional character in his place.
Tell you what,
Show us a GREAT politician, free and clear of any lies, wrong doing,
scandals...anything
The hookers in D.C. are fair and square, they take cash from all
politician.
Ask Heidi Fleist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans (was Re: ...) |
22 Jul 2003 03:27:05 PM |
|
|
"Tink" <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pcpqhv878id0v05oth4o40kies3do7lhtq@4ax.com...
For some reason, on 22 Jul 2003 07:19:50 -0700,
(osprey) came around and stated thus:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<OnednShJMseiKIGiXTWJkg@comcast.com>...
Does anyone actually like Bush?
Seriously. Does anyone like Bush, the real Bush?
Why does it matter? Does anyone know Bush personally? Is there any
good reason you would have for not liking him if you don't know him?
You may not like his policies, and that is your right. However, why
must you make it personal? Kind of sounds like a petty problem on
your end.
Not the myth, not the partisan propaganda, but the
real George Dubya Bush. Does anyone like him?
There's plenty who support Bush...
No, there are plenty who support Bush and the cabinet. Which includes
republicans and democrats.
no doubt about that.
There's no shortage of people who defend Bush. But, do
any of them honestly like him?
If so, why do they cling to some fantasy "Bush" that was
never a cocaine-snorting party animal...
So he partied? I thought liberals didn't care about drug usage.
We care about hypocrites who party relentlessly, get arrested for DWI
and then further a "war on drugs" agenda. Are you capable of seeing
how much harm could come from that? I didn't think so.
a fantasy Bush
who didn't a desert his national guard unit... a fantasy
Bush who didn't tell multiple lies in his state of the union
address...
Can you prove that "he" personally lied knowing it was a lie?
Answer: No
WRONG. We can prove he lied. Give us a while.
To make something up you mean.
After all we've been
patiently waiting for those WMD's to surface.
a fantasy that didn't return our government to
deficit spending in August of 2001, after swearing up &
down that he wouldn't.... a fantasy Bush that won the 2000
election fair & square?
Please, keep the ranting up on the economy because in a year or year
and a half, I want to make sure you are still around so I can
personally serve you a plate of crow.
Wannna bet?
Hey, we will see right? And I bet you are no where to be found when the
economy recovers.
I really honestly think you want the economy to tank on purpose just for the
liberal agenda
That is a shame
Oh, speaking of the 2000 election, you never did address the democrats
trying to sabatoge the military absentee votes. Gee, that was real
fair and square for our men and women overseas wasn't it.
There is a GOOD reason why most of our military supports republicans.
Can you figure it out?
Yeah, the military serves as a de facto political indoctrination camp.
Something we on the left are going to fix VERY soon.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
It seems to me that nobody is more ashamed of "President"
Bush than the Republicans.
They deny that Bush exists with their every breath, insisting
on some fictional character in his place.
Tell you what,
Show us a GREAT politician, free and clear of any lies, wrong doing,
scandals...anything
The hookers in D.C. are fair and square, they take cash from all
politician.
Ask Heidi Fleist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans (was Re: ...) |
23 Jul 2003 09:21:24 AM |
|
|
For some reason, on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:27:05 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> came around and stated thus:
"Tink" <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pcpqhv878id0v05oth4o40kies3do7lhtq@4ax.com...
For some reason, on 22 Jul 2003 07:19:50 -0700,
(osprey) came around and stated thus:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<OnednShJMseiKIGiXTWJkg@comcast.com>...
Does anyone actually like Bush?
Seriously. Does anyone like Bush, the real Bush?
Why does it matter? Does anyone know Bush personally? Is there any
good reason you would have for not liking him if you don't know him?
You may not like his policies, and that is your right. However, why
must you make it personal? Kind of sounds like a petty problem on
your end.
Not the myth, not the partisan propaganda, but the
real George Dubya Bush. Does anyone like him?
There's plenty who support Bush...
No, there are plenty who support Bush and the cabinet. Which includes
republicans and democrats.
no doubt about that.
There's no shortage of people who defend Bush. But, do
any of them honestly like him?
If so, why do they cling to some fantasy "Bush" that was
never a cocaine-snorting party animal...
So he partied? I thought liberals didn't care about drug usage.
We care about hypocrites who party relentlessly, get arrested for DWI
and then further a "war on drugs" agenda. Are you capable of seeing
how much harm could come from that? I didn't think so.
a fantasy Bush
who didn't a desert his national guard unit... a fantasy
Bush who didn't tell multiple lies in his state of the union
address...
Can you prove that "he" personally lied knowing it was a lie?
Answer: No
WRONG. We can prove he lied. Give us a while.
To make something up you mean.
Nope, your guys are the ones making things up. That's the main
problem here. Conservatives in general, are unable and unwilling to
admit when they are wrong.
After all we've been
patiently waiting for those WMD's to surface.
a fantasy that didn't return our government to
deficit spending in August of 2001, after swearing up &
down that he wouldn't.... a fantasy Bush that won the 2000
election fair & square?
Please, keep the ranting up on the economy because in a year or year
and a half, I want to make sure you are still around so I can
personally serve you a plate of crow.
Wannna bet?
Hey, we will see right? And I bet you are no where to be found when the
economy recovers.
I really honestly think you want the economy to tank on purpose just for the
liberal agenda
That is a shame
The fact that the economy is tanking right before our eyes is the only
proof we need to support the conclusion that conservative economics
don't work. They didn't work in the eighties and they won't work now.
Oh, speaking of the 2000 election, you never did address the democrats
trying to sabatoge the military absentee votes. Gee, that was real
fair and square for our men and women overseas wasn't it.
There is a GOOD reason why most of our military supports republicans.
Can you figure it out?
Yeah, the military serves as a de facto political indoctrination camp.
Something we on the left are going to fix VERY soon.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
It seems to me that nobody is more ashamed of "President"
Bush than the Republicans.
They deny that Bush exists with their every breath, insisting
on some fictional character in his place.
Tell you what,
Show us a GREAT politician, free and clear of any lies, wrong doing,
scandals...anything
The hookers in D.C. are fair and square, they take cash from all
politician.
Ask Heidi Fleist
Hedi Fliess worked in Hollywood, not Washington. Get your fact
straight.
How pathetic, you have to lie in order to ILLUSTRATE. What a waste.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans (was Re: ...) |
23 Jul 2003 10:25:03 AM |
|
|
"Tink" <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:456thvcj9ncqu0hmu0sid2v04bvash1qmi@4ax.com...
For some reason, on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:27:05 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> came around and stated thus:
"Tink" <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pcpqhv878id0v05oth4o40kies3do7lhtq@4ax.com...
For some reason, on 22 Jul 2003 07:19:50 -0700,
(osprey) came around and stated thus:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<OnednShJMseiKIGiXTWJkg@comcast.com>...
Does anyone actually like Bush?
Seriously. Does anyone like Bush, the real Bush?
Why does it matter? Does anyone know Bush personally? Is there any
good reason you would have for not liking him if you don't know him?
You may not like his policies, and that is your right. However, why
must you make it personal? Kind of sounds like a petty problem on
your end.
Not the myth, not the partisan propaganda, but the
real George Dubya Bush. Does anyone like him?
There's plenty who support Bush...
No, there are plenty who support Bush and the cabinet. Which includes
republicans and democrats.
no doubt about that.
There's no shortage of people who defend Bush. But, do
any of them honestly like him?
If so, why do they cling to some fantasy "Bush" that was
never a cocaine-snorting party animal...
So he partied? I thought liberals didn't care about drug usage.
We care about hypocrites who party relentlessly, get arrested for DWI
and then further a "war on drugs" agenda. Are you capable of seeing
how much harm could come from that? I didn't think so.
a fantasy Bush
who didn't a desert his national guard unit... a fantasy
Bush who didn't tell multiple lies in his state of the union
address...
Can you prove that "he" personally lied knowing it was a lie?
Answer: No
WRONG. We can prove he lied. Give us a while.
To make something up you mean.
Nope, your guys are the ones making things up. That's the main
problem here. Conservatives in general, are unable and unwilling to
admit when they are wrong.
ROFL
When you are ready to wake up and face reality, let us know.
You are blaming Bush right?
Basically you are saying BUSH is responsible for all that happened
You forget
Congress and the senate pass the resolution to go to war.
People like James Kerry are members of the senate, who approved of Bush's
request to use military force.
Like most liberals you are ignoring your own party's faults.
After all we've been
patiently waiting for those WMD's to surface.
a fantasy that didn't return our government to
deficit spending in August of 2001, after swearing up &
down that he wouldn't.... a fantasy Bush that won the 2000
election fair & square?
Please, keep the ranting up on the economy because in a year or year
and a half, I want to make sure you are still around so I can
personally serve you a plate of crow.
Wannna bet?
Hey, we will see right? And I bet you are no where to be found when the
economy recovers.
I really honestly think you want the economy to tank on purpose just for
the
liberal agenda
That is a shame
The fact that the economy is tanking right before our eyes is the only
proof we need to support the conclusion that conservative economics
don't work. They didn't work in the eighties and they won't work now.
I want to make sure you are around in about a year. Just keep talking, keep
yapping, and just make sure you are around next year.
Oh, speaking of the 2000 election, you never did address the democrats
trying to sabatoge the military absentee votes. Gee, that was real
fair and square for our men and women overseas wasn't it.
There is a GOOD reason why most of our military supports republicans.
Can you figure it out?
Yeah, the military serves as a de facto political indoctrination camp.
Something we on the left are going to fix VERY soon.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
It seems to me that nobody is more ashamed of "President"
Bush than the Republicans.
They deny that Bush exists with their every breath, insisting
on some fictional character in his place.
Tell you what,
Show us a GREAT politician, free and clear of any lies, wrong doing,
scandals...anything
The hookers in D.C. are fair and square, they take cash from all
politician.
Ask Heidi Fleist
Hedi Fliess worked in Hollywood, not Washington. Get your fact
straight.
Are you saying that we don't have U.S. politicians that go to Hollywood?
How pathetic, you have to lie in order to ILLUSTRATE. What a waste.
yawn
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans (was Re: ...) |
23 Jul 2003 10:55:36 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote
When you are ready to wake up and face reality, let us know.
We're awake, and Bush has brought us the highest number of
new unemployment claims in 20 years, and the hishest "official"
unemployment rate in a decade.... the unofficial rate being much
higher than that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
19 Jul 2003 04:19:24 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in message news:<1dc521ed.0307191057.471cb8c2@posting.google.com>...
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<NMKdneiL84BjWoWiU-KYvw@comcast.com>...
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote
How did Bush steal it?
The critical piece was tossing 50,000 (mostly) black
people off the Florida voter rolls.
For Presidential elections (and only Presidential elections),
the Democrats can expect upwards of 90% of the black
vote. Throw 10,000 black people off the voter rolls (deny
them their right to vote), and, even with a 20% voter
turnout, and you just cost Al Gore about 1,500 votes in an
election that was decided by a few hundred.
Any racial group so indebted to their DNC plantation masters doling
out their daily bread and yearly hate crimes legislative fix, and to
the tune of 90%, SHOULD be thrown off the voter rolls! If whites voted
in these same patterns, there wouldn't be a black dog catcher in the
country, much less a black congressional caucus. (Cordially,
Marie)
Not to mention Marie, their claim is absolute BS, unsupported, and
with out any proof what so ever.
If they could prove it, people would be going to jail for the above
allegation.
I don't see anyone going to jail, do you?
They are grasping.
I bet they also are in alliance with the NAACP with their
characterization that republicans are flying the nazi flag.
Talk about foot in mouth, that is a comment the NAACP will regret.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
19 Jul 2003 05:05:49 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2003 11:57:54 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Hello there, marie/jason/screechres/barbara/mikey/kleenex.
How is everyone today?
Legalize Cheesecake!
maf and dog,aa #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
18 Jul 2003 08:36:56 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I_0Sa.85541$hV.5957139@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Nr-dnTQK7N9_5YWiU-KYvw@comcast.com...
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dggghvg3o02no10nc8k91021t0gp018red@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:51:42 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
SNIP
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f256bdb.23765000@netnews.mchsi.com...
(since
he LOST the POPULAR vote)
Irrelevant.
-- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
Such trick being?
The systematic disenfranchisement of THOUSANDS of black voters -- a
crime to which Jeb Bush has stipulated and promises to correct in the
future,
= = = = = = = = = = = =
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT
"I watched the whole thing like a hawk, and that's totally
consistent with the news footage I saw.
"And now, of course, we know Ken Lay paid for the whole
thing. You know, that Ann Richards supporter.
"I watched those bastards storm the corridors of the
building on TV, in nice shirts, hollering like monkeys, in
return for all-expense-paid Florida vacations."
-- Chas. 'Mark' Bee <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>, July 12, 2002
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
NOT according to the Electoral College. Aint' they the ones who elect
the
President?
Yes indeed, archaic and irrelevant but still on the books -- HOWEVER
if the Florida votes had been actually counted and had the many
thousands of disenfranchised blacks been restored to the rolls Florida
would have gone to Gore and the Electoral College would have confirmed
his election.
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
Together for 47 years
and still
Strangers in the eyes of the law
--------------------------
If the Democrats didn't try and block the military votes, they wouldn't
be
so hated right now by many in the military.
http://www.nljonline.com/December2000/military.htm
Democrats Eradicate Military Votes
The Gore campaign, which sent out a five-page pre-election memo
instructing
Florida election officials how to screen out the
<big snip of Bobbi's whining>
More nonsense on the election that Bush stole?
Talk about living in the past.
Today, the soldiers are disgusted with the Bush Administration's cuts in
the
military pay and benefits.
Yawn:
You really are ignorant.
As a vet, I have never seen any pay cuts while Bush has been in office.
You can't refute what the democrats tried to do with military absentee
ballots, so you make up more lies
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Day that Republican **THUGS** Hijacked the White House |
18 Jul 2003 09:46:56 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote
As a vet, I have never seen any pay cuts while Bush has
been in office.
I don't believe that you really are a vet. A real vet wouldn't
support George Dubya Bush, a prissy coward who deserted
his unit during the Vietnam war.
http://www.awolbush.com/
You can't refute what the democrats tried to do with military
absentee ballots, so you make up more lies
Wow, this is insane. Do you also stop people on the streets and
accuse them of trying to use ESP to kill you?
The Republicans were in full control of Florida's legislature,
and and the monkeying around with absentee ballots was by
Republicans.
Republicans -- and only Republicans -- were given acess to
requests for absentee ballots, and allowed to alter them.
But we expect lies from you, someone who pretends to be a vet
yet endorses a deserter.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Yawn: Another liberal in need of education - This is going to hurt |
19 Jul 2003 03:09:18 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dpecnZH9Q4IELYWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote
As a vet, I have never seen any pay cuts while Bush has
been in office.
I don't believe that you really are a vet. A real vet wouldn't
support George Dubya Bush, a prissy coward who deserted
his unit during the Vietnam war.
http://www.awolbush.com/
You can't refute what the democrats tried to do with military
absentee ballots, so you make up more lies
Wow, this is insane. Do you also stop people on the streets and
accuse them of trying to use ESP to kill you?
The Republicans were in full control of Florida's legislature,
and and the monkeying around with absentee ballots was by
Republicans.
Republicans -- and only Republicans -- were given acess to
requests for absentee ballots, and allowed to alter them.
But we expect lies from you, someone who pretends to be a vet
yet endorses a deserter.....
Intentional Election Disruption
How Al Gore and the Democrats Attempted to Take Florida
On November 7th, 2000, George W. Bush was elected to be the 43rd
President of the United States.
During the following thirty-five days America watched in confusion and
anxiety as Al Gore and his team attempted to change that outcome.
This article explains how Gore not only disrupted the election but
also planned and attempted a modern-day coup, an election reversal.
Topics include: The inaccurate and mysterious declaration by the VNS
that said Gore was the winner of Florida the calling of voters on
election day deception surrounding the butterfly ballot public
relations and personal destruction campaigns the elimination of
military votes and most importantly, manual recounts in the top
Democrat counties.
Wasn't Gore just trying to get a fair count of the votes?
No. In Florida, canvassing boards counted all of the votes twice
using their normal tabulation systems, and Gore lost.
The outcome was essentially decided on Election Day and Bush was the
winner. However, Gore then launched a campaign to overturn the
results by targeting four Democrat counties in which he could find
additional votes through manual recounting. The four counties he
selected (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia) are overwhelmingly
Democrat counties and constitute nearly 25% of Florida's six million
ballots.
To justify this the Democrats quickly implemented an aggressive
campaign in which they said more people voted for Gore than did for
Bush, even though Bush had more votes. They claimed that Gore voters
were targeted and disenfranchised. They said if the "will of the
people" was truly known Gore would be the winner. Americans were told
to just ignore the results of the election because Democrats knew in
their hearts that Gore won.
Just hours after learning of Gore's loss his team quickly organized
and prepared for their alternative recounting plan. They began by
claiming voters were victims of serious election mishaps or
breakdowns. They complained about "anomalies" that needed to be
investigated before victory was officially declared for Bush. They
claimed the election was severely flawed, broken to the point where
voters were helpless victims unable to participate in our Democracy.
(Interestingly, before local Democrats were able to get on board with
the plan, some were quoted in newspapers about how well the election
had proceeded.)
Democrats needed to destroy the integrity of the election in order to
implement manual recounts. Their plan was to immediately propagate
extreme accusations and reach wild speculative conclusions, thus
quickly building public outrage and support. This would buy them time
as they collected and solidified evidence in order to implement their
recounting plan. This would allow Gore to submit his request for
manual recounts before the Thursday deadline without obviously
appearing to be hunting for additional votes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What anomalies were they referring to and how should they be
"investigated"?
The feverish outcry began with broad accusations and general hysteria,
designed merely to convince citizens they were victims of an evil
conspiracy or election breakdown. Over time, Democrats have tried to
weave a broader canvas of complaints in order to justify Gore's
behavior and discredit the Bush Presidency.
Yes, there were normal election glitches, such as a computer
malfunction in one precinct that was resolved on Election Day. Long
lines frustrated voters and like all elections some people were not
properly registered, thus they were unable to vote. Some were told
they were at the wrong precinct and should go to their correct
location (This happened to me on Election Day. But I don't think it
was a conspiracy - I was at the wrong location.) The large turnout
caused phone lines to be jammed, frustrating workers as they tried to
verify voters. And of course the Democrats would eventually sink
their teeth into the Butterfly Ballot in Palm Beach County. This
would give them tremendous momentum in their quest.
Elections are large undertakings that involve a lot of people and
procedures. In every election, in every county, there are problems
that popup and are usually resolved promptly by local canvassing
boards. But after the election, local canvassing boards were NOT
complaining and trying to resolve election problems. It was Al Gore
who came barreling in after losing the election, claiming he was there
to save the day! He was going to "fix" the broken election that local
Democrats apparently couldn't manage on their own. (And he was going
to do this by having manual recounts!)
Interestingly, although it was fellow Democrats who administered the
elections where Gore wanted recounts, the Gore team still somehow
managed to convince people it was Republican manipulation that
prevented him from winning.
The broad and ambiguous nature of their accusations allowed Democrats
to perpetuate the fear that the election was broken yet did not pin
them to a single issue that could be resolved and moved past. If they
did, the election would merely end and their quest would be over.
Gore was not interested in solving "anomalies" and ending the
election. Rather, he was interested in creating grave and ambiguous
concern over its integrity in order to convince America it was flawed,
broken, and inaccurate.
He needed to setup manual recounts in Democrat counties. It was his
only hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complaints of anomalies worked exactly as Gore wanted. They
sufficiently masked his real intentions, his last-ditch effort to
implement manual recounts in Democrat counties.
Eventually, Gore's team focused less and less on so-called anomalies
and more on the importance of manual recounting, claiming all they
were seeking was a "fair count of the votes" and that machine
tabulation was incomplete. Although they raised a swirl of concern
about the integrity of Florida's election, they eventually focused
completely on the inadequacies of machine tabulation, claiming Florida
needed a new counting method, a voter protection remedy in the form of
manual recounting.
Gore's plan was to change the counting methods after Election Day,
after he learned he lost. He tried to force manual recounts even
though the law didn't support it. (I address this later.)
Today the Gore legacy continues. Many supporters continue to seek out
problems in the 2000 Florida Election, hoping to justify his
disruption and somehow prove he was the winner. Over time their
arguments have evolved into a variety of themes such as Supreme Court
decisions, voting rolls for felons, unequal voting systems for
minorities, etc. But it is important to understand that these
post-election complaints have nothing to do with Gore's quest. Ask
yourself this question - How was Gore trying to resolve "felony voting
rolls" by having manual recounts in Democrat counties? - and you'll
get the idea. If Gore wanted to fix or challenge anomalies, he sure
had a funny way of doing so.
Most of these so-called problems had nothing to do with Gore's real
efforts in Florida, his desperate quest for manual recounts in
Democrat counties.
Are you saying there was a conspiracy?
Yes. Gore's team developed a deliberate and premeditated plan to
reverse the election.
The core of the plan was basic "recount strategy", the process of
delaying the finality of the election and implementing as many
recounts as possible until the desired outcome is reached. This was
the process that America was dragged through for 35 days following the
election.
However, I believe this plan was more elaborate than just
post-election litigation and manual recounts. Some groundwork needed
to be done. First, the election results needed to be very narrow.
Gore would not have proceeded with this plan if Bush's lead were much
larger. (He actually conceded the election when he thought he lost by
150,000 votes.)
Secondly, there needed to be a seed of doubt about the results, the
strong impression that Gore was perhaps the true winner. This
impression would suggest that the election was stolen by Bush and that
fraud may have taken place. As we all remember, this impression began
on election night before the polls were even closed. The networks
(who received their information from The Voter News Service)
mysteriously declared that Gore was the winner of Florida, a state
where Bush had more votes and the race was extremely narrow.
Finally, there needed to be a mobilization of angry and confused
citizens who would be ready to fight for an election that was
apparently undermined by evil conspirators (the Bush "Regime"). The
sheer power of this mobilization could propel counties into manual
recounting. This would be created by a massive campaign that claimed
the election was broken and that Gore was the true winner. The
Butterfly Ballot, and subsequent fostering of hysteria, was Gore's
primary tool to achieving this objective.
PLAN B:
You may recall William Daley announcing to an enthusiastic crowd on
Election Night, "Our campaign continues." This was a prophetic choice
of words because it is exactly what took place in Florida, an
orchestrated campaign.
Immediately following the election (and perhaps on election day
itself) Democrats began to foster hysteria. They claimed that
something terrible and sinister had taken place. They claimed that
"investigations" must be done before George Bush was granted victory.
"We've seen a presidential election where people had their rights
denied through intimidation.
.... The violations are widespread.
I feel they are concentrating on our community... "
Carrie Meek, Democrat State Representative
"We don't know who won.
.... We need more than just a recount, we need a thorough
investigation."
Jessie Jackson
"19,000 people had their votes invalidated because of an illegal
ballot that was extremely confusing."
Congressman Robert Wexler
Very quickly, they mobilized an army of lawyers and operatives who
could find anomalies, no matter how slight, and try to use them to
invalidate the election. They demonized Republicans, raised suspicion
and fear about their behavior, and claimed that our Democracy was
being trampled upon.
Within two days, amidst the chaos, Gore filed a request to implement
manual recounts in four Democrat counties.
The Democrats decided they could overturn this election if they just
worked hard enough at it.
We know for sure this plan was in progress just a few hours after Gore
learned he had lost on election night. Around that time, William
Daley (Campaign Chairman) convinced Gore not to concede, that it was
too soon. The Gore team then held a panic-driven meeting with their
top advisors and lawyers. After quickly reviewing Florida's election
laws, they decided the election was close enough to proceed with "plan
b".
Within a few hours, approximately 70 anxious Democrats boarded a plane
for Tallahassee. The tired workers (many still wearing the same
wrinkled clothes they were in all day) listened to instructions given
over the loudspeaker. The instructions outlined the general
principles of recount strategy. Their orders were to prolong counties
from certifying votes, seek-out anomalies for litigation, and most
importantly, implement manual recounts in Democrat strongholds. (They
were hoping to land in Florida secretly, like a covert military team
on a mission. However, as their plane pulled to a stop and they began
to unload, Jeb Bush was departing his own plane just fifty feet away.
Embarrassed, they exchanged waves, ending their hope for a covert
operation.)
"The sense is, we are going to play hardball."
Gore Aide
Remember, these are professional politicians who only have one
objective, to win by whatever means necessary. In big politics,
millions of dollars change hands. There is tremendous competition.
It is their job to mobilize people, shape public opinion, know the ins
and outs of election laws, and manipulate the process as much as
possible to their advantage. Although dimpled chads and manual
recounting were new to most Americans, they are known among veteran
politicians. Recount-strategy had been used before.
What we saw in Florida was recount-strategy on a massive scale. It
was a grand scheme that involved orchestrated chaos. It was a
modern-day coup d' etat, an attempt to overthrow an election.
Gore had nothing more to lose. He already lost the election. Doing
nothing would end any hope he had to become President.
Wasn't the election really too close to call?
No. George Bush never trailed Al Gore by a single vote, even after a
variety of recounts. (This is a fact that seems to elude most Gore
supporters and the media.)
Long after the disruption ended, the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) has scrambled in order to justify Gore's behavior. They have
anxiously waited for any type of revelation that would somehow prove
Gore was the "true" winner of Florida, or that some impropriety took
place on behalf of the Bush team. They would like to validate their
extreme behavior in Florida.
In the meantime, ironically, there were two messages that were born
from Gore's campaign, each contradicting each other.
First, when addressing the nation at-large, the Gore team claimed that
the election was "too close to call". That is, we shouldn't be so
quick to conclude that Bush was the winner, even though he has more
votes. Al Gore said to the country, "We shouldn't rush to judgment."
Democrats claimed that the election results were too narrow to
conclude one way or the other. How could we declare that Bush was the
winner if the results fell within the margin of error? Therefore,
manual recounting in Democrat counties were just an effort to arrive
at the truth. Besides, there were all these so-called "anomalies"
that needed to be ironed out.
Then, the Democrats fed their constituency a much more powerful
message, one that contradicts the "too close to call" theme. This
message is often heard today on radios, television, the Internet, in
books, etc. It is the one that I find to be the most disturbing.
They claim that if we truly had an accurate tabulation, and
Republicans weren't "afraid to count the votes", Gore would clearly be
the winner, by thousands of votes.
"... Such a recount performed properly would have revealed a Gore
victory."
John Nichols, liberal author.
This author concludes that Gore would have won Florida under a
"proper" recount. Yet this makes one wonder, if a proper recount
hasn't yet been conducted how does Nichols know it would reveal a Gore
victory? I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it. To
Democrats, recounting was just a formality. They already knew the
outcome. In fact, why bother counting in the first place? We should
just give the victory to Gore. Further, what exactly constitutes a
"proper" recount? Well, I guess the Democrats would just let us know
when they're satisfied.
They claim that the election was thwarted, that there were votes still
yet to be counted, and if those votes were counted, Gore would clearly
be our President. Many people, including Joe Liebermann, said this on
national television in the midst of Gore's quest. And how do they
know this? Well, I guess we were just supposed to take their word for
it.
As you can see, we have been given two very contradicting messages.
First, we were told, "The election was too close to call". Then we
were told, "Gore was clearly the real winner in Florida."
But Democrats don't mind this contradiction because confusion has
worked to Gore's advantage. It is a required element in a coup d'
etat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Update - Democrats anxiously awaited a study conducted by
the University of Chicago, known as the NORC study, in hopes that it
would reveal Gore was the true winner of Florida. Again, they hope to
somehow justify his behavior.
The study empirically looked at all of Florida's disqualified ballots
and categorized them according to dimples, hanging chads, etc. From
there, people have attempted to deduce what would have happened under
a variety of manual recounting scenarios. That is, what would have
happened if Florida counted dimples as votes? What if we manually
recounted the entire state? What about just the counties Gore
targeted? The idea is, if Gore would have been allowed to manually
recount as many times as he wanted, in any county, using any standard
he wanted, perhaps then he would have found enough new votes to
overturn the election. To Democrats, apparently, this study could
somehow prove Gore was the rightful winner of Florida's election.
They were hoping the study would demonstrate that Gore actually
received thousands of votes over Bush, that the election system is
broken in Florida.
Even if we go along with this reasoning (to manually recount wherever
the Democrats wanted and include ambiguous ballots as votes), most
scenarios still would have gone in Bush's favor. However, Democrats
are clinging to the few scenarios that suggest Gore may have squeaked
out a victory. They are mostly excited about the scenario of manually
recounting the entire state while including dimples and pregnant chads
as votes. They believe Gore would have picked up enough new votes to
win the election.
But the study serves only to give false hope to Gore supporters and
has been misused. The research only categorized and tabulated the
number of dimples, pregnant chads, markings, etc. It does not
conclude that these ambiguous ballots were actually votes. It does
not make judgments upon them other than placing them in their proper
categories. The NORC study has made a strong point to say,
"...the project does not identify “winners.” Its goal is
to assess the reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the
highest standards of scientific accuracy and reliability."
If Democrats would like to argue that Gore received more dimples or
hanging chads, by all means, they are welcome to do so. But instead,
they would like to say he received more votes, something the study
does not reveal (just like the tabulation machines in Florida).
The study perpetuates the myth that dimples must be included as votes
and that counties were obliged to manually recount wherever Gore
wanted.
If the study proved anything, it demonstrated how close the election
truly was. Neither candidate would have won by a significant margin
under any counting or recounting scenario. Further, there is no
connection between Gore's hunt for more votes in Democrat counties and
what the study "revealed". People who rely on the NORC study to
justify Gore's behavior fail to consider how elections are held in
Florida, how votes are tabulated, what constitutes a vote, which
counties recounted, Florida law, etc.
"...the ballot examination includes not only the undervotes (ballots
with no registered vote for president) but also the overvotes (ballots
with more than one vote for president)."
I encourage everyone to visit the NORC website, read about their
research, and examine their data - http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/
On a historical note, on the very day in which the NORC study was to
be revealed to the media, just months following September 11, there
was a horrific plane crash out of JFK International Airport in New
York City. Many suspected that this plane crash was terrorist
related. As a result, the NORC study was rightfully buried within the
news casts.
"Irrespective of the results by the newspapers we know that more
Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore than George Bush on November
7, 2000."
Vincent Bugliosi, before the NORC study was finished.
This is a particularly odd statement. Without any evidence, he is
saying that more people intended to vote for Gore than for Bush in
Florida, even though Bush received more votes. He further suggests
this will be true even if the NORC study points towards the other
direction. Bugliosi's statement is a clear example of how powerful
and misleading Gore's campaign was. People just assume he was a
victim in Florida, that more citizens attempted to vote for him than
for Bush. Yet there is little evidence to suggest this is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with fewer votes, Gore needed to convince everyone that the
election was not yet over. It was as if he was saying, "Hold on
everyone. I realize Bush has more votes. But something terrible has
happened. There has been a big mistake. I am really the winner of
the election and I need more time to prove this. I think if we take a
closer look at the ballots (in democrat counties), everything would
become perfectly clear, and I will be the winner. Just be patient and
let me do my thing."
And the Democrat army quickly rallied to his help. Within the first
two days following the election, there was stunning unison as they
claimed, "We don't really know who won. We don't have a true count!"
It was paramount for the Democrats to maintain and build public
support. They were trying to reverse an election. And luckily for
them, there was a groundswell of emotional citizens ready to believe
that the election was stolen from them. Very soon there would be
rallies of people demanding "justice".
And the media passively assisted Gore by continually relaying his
message to the country. For weeks following the election, America
heard the phrase, "too close to call". In other words, even though
George Bush had more votes, we still didn't know who won the election.
Apparently, having the most votes no longer indicates who the winner
is.
This line of thinking struck me as particularly odd and dangerous
right from the beginning. On the morning following the election, I
awoke (with perhaps two hours of sleep) only to hear Katie Couric
exclaim, "Good morning, we don't have a winner!"
Really? But I thought George Bush had more votes?
Perhaps it would have been more accurate if Katie would have said
something like the following, "Good morning America, we do in fact
have a winner, but, well, uh, we're not quite ready to accept it. So
for now we are going to simply say it's too close to call. We'll get
back to you in a few days."
It was simply inaccurate and misleading to say the election was "too
close to call", when George Bush had more votes. It gave false hope
to the losers of the election and helped Gore setup his plan. I
sensed immediately that the message was coming from the Al Gore camp
and that he was positioning to de-legitimize Bush's victory. Upon
reviewing election night coverage, I discovered William Daley was
among the first to begin pounding the message. Shortly after he
apparently convinced Gore not to concede, he approached the podium in
Nashville Tennessee and spoke to the rain-drenched crowd. He said,
the race in Florida is "too close to call" and their campaign
continues. The crowd's hope was reborn.
In the long run, Gore's strategy has apparently given him a
psychological advantage. Even though he was unable to reverse the
outcome of the election, he has successfully convinced many people
that he was the true winner of Florida, even though he had fewer
votes. Many people still don't quite admit that George Bush won
legitimately. Instead of questioning Gore's desperate quest for
manual recounting, people now focus on everything else, especially the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that finally put an
end to Gore's disruption.
I continue to hear many examples of this desperate logic on
television, radio and the Internet. There continues to be a Gore
legacy, ongoing residual from his disruption, that he was somehow held
back from winning Florida. For example, I once heard Michael Moore
(Liberal activist film maker) say on television, "Gore won Florida and
most investigations prove that."
Oh really? Which investigations is he referring to? Certainly none
that I have seen. He's clearly not referring to the investigation by
Florida's 67 counties who counted the votes twice using their normal
tabulation methods. Does that investigation count?
Sorry Mr. Moore, your lies are running thin.
Michael Moore has fallen in line with Gore's plan. He thinks we
should just forget the fact that Bush had more votes. We should just
believe that Gore had more votes because, well, he said so. Like many
Anti-Republicans, Moore is only interested in creating the appearance
that the election was fraudulent, broken, and illegitimate. Moore
will say anything to demonize Republicans and to make a dollar. So
once again we have heard falsehood blasted on national television,
"Gore had more votes", "Gore was a victim", etc.
Once Gore got this publicity roller coaster moving within hours of
losing the election (or as I believe, on election day itself), it
worked perfectly. With all the fear and hysteria that quickly grew in
Florida, Gore easily requested manual recounts in four Democrat
counties by the Thursday deadline, just 2 days following the election.
Like a stealth aircraft in war, he submitted his protest with little
public awareness of his true intentions, to convert ambiguous ballots
into new votes and hopefully overturn the election.
All the while, he cloaked his actions under the guise of "fairness"
and "truth".
What other efforts went into Gore's plan?
I am concerned about the scope and magnitude of Gore's quest to
overthrow the election. I believe more investigation is needed to
fully understand the actions of his team, before and after the
election. Clearly, most of their behavior stems from the all-out
desire to implement manual recounts in order to find more votes. But
I wonder how much of Gore's strategy was in place prior to the
election? To what extent did they go in planning and implementing
their plan? Is it possible that the events in Florida were a
premeditated coup d' etat by the Gore team? What other behavior was
there that we don't know about?
While most people think the Florida disruption began when the networks
mistakenly declared that Gore would win Florida, in reality something
very profound had taken place earlier that day. I believe this event
is the first clue that Gore's recount plan was in place prior to
Election Day and perhaps was more elaborate than what meets the eye.
The Democrats had hired a telemarketing company to call voters in Palm
Beach County (the home of the butterfly ballot). The "polling
company", named Telequest, quickly called as many citizens as it could
before the election ended at 7:00. They used a push poll that
contained a very suggestive statement and motivated listeners to take
action. The language of the message confirmed the chatter that was
already spinning around the county, that there was a problem with the
ballot. The message served to confirm what citizens were already
concerned about, that there was an election breakdown that placed
votes in jeopardy.
The polling firm also gathered data on voters in case they needed to
be contacted again for legal affidavits and a protest. (Clearly,
Democrats were preparing for litigation.)
By utilizing Telequest, the Democrats told citizens that some people
have accidentally punched the wrong hole for the wrong candidate. Yet
how did they know this was true if the county had not yet looked at
the ballots? What evidence did they have? Did people come out of the
voting booths saying, "The ballot made me vote for the wrong
candidate"? Even if this was the case, was it proper for Democrats to
jump to wild conclusions, take matters in their own hands and alarm
the public? What made them think Gore was the victim of the ballot
design? Also, in what election did someone NOT punch the wrong hole
for the wrong candidate? Voter error is regular election phenomenon.
What were Democrats hoping to change by calling citizens in the last
hour of voting?
The Democrats also told listeners to return to the polling center and
report the problem to election officials "so that the problem can be
fixed."
The language and purpose of this message is alarming and astounding.
First it told voters there was an election "problem". It told them
they were victims of an election breakdown or scheme. It asked them
to return to the polling centers (to mobilize). And it further
suggested that the "problem" could be somehow be "fixed". That is,
with their strong effort and determination they could somehow unite
and overcome this supposed scheme. The worst thing one could do under
such circumstances, as a patriotic citizen who cherishes the right to
vote, would be to sit there and let this injustice go unopposed.
Keep in mind; at this point no one knew it was a Democrat who had
created the butterfly ballot. This campaign took place on Election
Day, where the "fog of war" was still strong. Excitement, high
emotions, and confusion are the usual states of mind on Election Day.
As a result, people quickly suspected that some sort of impropriety
had taken place, especially since Jeb Bush was the Governor of
Florida.
With Democrats broadcasting this powerful message citizens easily
concluded that Republicans had manipulated the election process. It
was time to stand up and protect the American way of life!
Further, the idea that citizens were told to return to the polling
center is quite revealing. Democrats were suggesting that the county
could somehow offer a remedy such as letting them vote again or
changing the ballot in some way (these are preposterous notions.)
Remember, this was done before Gore even knew he was the loser. To
tell citizens to return to the polling station is quite extreme and
bizarre. What were their motives? What were they trying to achieve?
What evidence did they have for their claims?
Why were they creating hysteria?
One can only conclude that the Democrats were mobilizing. They were
shaping public opinion in preparation for "plan B". They decided to
intentionally foster outrage and concern. They were building their
case and preparing for a protest right in the middle of Election Day
before anyone even knew the outcome.
Democrats anticipated their eventual course of action. They were
going to rely on manual recounts and they needed to lay down the
foundation, to get the public on their side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One college professor quickly spoke to the defense of Democrats by
noting, "The fact that they raised concern early in the day indicates
the legitimacy of their concern."
The idea is, since Democrats were responding before the election
ended, without yet knowing who the winner was, they were likely just
reacting to legitimate concerns regarding the ballot design. They
were just responding to the overwhelming concern of citizens. They
had no ulterior motive.
I'm not convinced. I suggest they were not acting in "concern".
Rather, they were interfering with the election process. They were
independently broadcasting a message and alarming the public. At best
I would call their behavior irresponsible, extreme, and wanting for
more information. There was no benefit in scaring citizens on
Election Day other than to create hysteria and to mobilize a protest.
They were not providing a public service. Rather, they were seeking
some sort of strategic edge.
Further, there was no basis for their actions other than pure
speculation and fear. In particular, Congressman Robert Wexler and
others had reached inaccurate and extreme conclusions in a preemptive
strike to disqualify the election in Palm Beach County, just in case
they needed to. Ask yourself, what was their ultimate goal? What
were they trying to achieve? The more you look at it, the more
bizarre it appears. I do not take their actions at face value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telequest contacted around 5000 Democrats and was intent on calling
75,000 before the polls had closed. They were serious about getting
their message out.
But oddly, once the polls were closed Telequest was done with its
mission. It was no longer needed to call citizens any more. Whatever
the Democrats were trying to accomplish could apparently only be done
on Election Day itself, before the polls were closed. They were
urgently trying to mobilize people before the deadline of 7:00.
Why was this time frame so important? One could reasonably argue that
the Democrats were just using the ballot issue as a "get out the vote"
opportunity. But as it turns out, 98% of the people called had
already voted that day. Further, the polls were only open for about
an hour longer. Seems awfully extreme for a last minute vote push.
I suggest that they needed to strike while the fire was hot.
Whether or not Telequest and local Democrats were aware, something was
in the works. Momentum was building that would lead to an outcry, a
protest. It was the beginning of Gore's new campaign, to convince
citizens the election was broken and that their votes were not going
to be counted. It was the beginning of the coup.
The timing and speed of this behavior begs a question, is it possible
that someone hired the polling firm prior to Election Day? When
exactly was Telequest instructed to phone people in Palm Beach County?
The "official" but non-detailed story is that Telequest was instructed
on Election Day to make the calls, in response to concern over the
butterfly ballot. But there has been some mystery surrounding the
company. They have been quite silent and unavailable about their role
in the election, other than a couple of brief statements.
(I have made many attempts to contact Telequest but have been turned
away every time. Although I was first able to speak with a person, it
is now difficult to make any contact at all. The Essar Group, a large
Indian company, apparently acquired Telequest within weeks following
the election. Telequest has also changed its name to Etelequest.)
I also ask, is it possible that Telequest wasn't an independent
company at all? Is it possible that Telequest and the DNC were one in
the same? This is pure speculation, but suppose the DNC had created a
company, a marketing firm, whose sole purpose was to "gather election
data". On the surface, the company could act as if it were
independent and unbiased. Yet, in reality it could be used as a
powerful tool to shape public opinion (which is how it was used in
Palm Beach County). I'm not saying Telequest didn't exist. I am just
saying it was clearly one tool in the Democrat's arsenal of political
weapons. Perhaps Telequest was a creation of the DNC.
Either way, it is still evident that the Democrats were preparing for
a loss, building their post-election defense, early on Election Day.
They began creating public fear, convincing voters that they voted
incorrectly and their votes would never be counted, well before the
county began to even look at the ballots.
More on Palm Beach County:
As I proceed further, it is important to keep in mind the relationship
between Al Gore's efforts for manual recounts in four Democrat
counties and the case of the butterfly ballot.
Gore never directly challenged the butterfly-ballot and he didn't seek
manual recounts on that basis. Rather, he claimed he was concerned
about tabulation methods, saying manual recounting was better than
machine recounting.
But the ballot "issue", and subsequent hysteria, was a perfect setup
for Gore's larger plan. Democrats could exploit the issue in order to
create confusion, possibly invalidate the election, and shape public
opinion. As a result, many citizens believe the election was a
disaster and that manual recounting, or even re-voting, were logical
remedies, just to be on the "safe" side.
Palm Beach County was the perfect place for Gore to implement his
plan. For starters, it was loaded with Democrats. There were nearly
a half million voters, which by sheer numbers would lead to tons of
disqualified ballots. (This was also the case with Miami-Dade and
Broward Counties.) Also, the canvassing board was comprised of
sympathetic Democrats who would be willing to adapt to Gore's plight.
After all, it was they who created the butterfly ballot in the first
place.
But the merit of the butterfly ballot case has proven to be quite
weak, as I will show. In fact, it never even made it to court and
likely wouldn't have mattered if it did since it was a legal ballot.
Gore never fought a ballot issue in Florida. Likewise, he was never
awarded recounts, or any relief at all, on the basis of the butterfly
ballot. In addition, the butterfly ballot doesn't explain why Gore
wanted manual recounts in three other counties, where that type was
not used.
It wasn't until several weeks later that his case began to take legal
shape and gain momentum, when he began to focus nearly entirely on
undervotes. At this point, the Florida Supreme Court stepped in,
rewrote Florida law, and mandated that all counties sift through
undervotes, triple-checking the ambiguous ballots. Again, this had
nothing to do with the butterfly ballot unless you believe it
prevented people from selecting even one candidate.
Thus, we had a strange juggling act by Democrats as they tried to get
their stories straight. One minute they claimed they wanted manual
recounts because of tabulation machines that supposedly left ballots
uncounted. They claimed, "All we seek is a fair count of the votes!"
But they also claimed that voting devices are outdated and inadequate.
Further, they said they were concerned about so-called anomalies,
such as glitches on Election Day. Putting it all together (voting
machines, tabulation machines, the butterfly ballot, and so-called
anomalies), they convinced people there were systemic breakdowns that
prevented Gore from winning.
They managed to put Florida's entire election system on trial.
Naturally, they claimed the best way to resolve all of this was to
implement manual recounts in Democrat counties.
"There was a systematic disenfranchisement of people of color and poor
people."
Donna Brazile, Gore's Campaign Manager.
Ultimately, the Palm Beach County canvassing board buckled to this
pressure and proceeded with manual recounting. They proceeded to hunt
for more votes for Gore.
Therefore, most people overlook the real significance of the butterfly
ballot; how it gave Gore some shelter. It was the tool that created
the most hysteria and public outrage. It enabled Gore to request
manual recounts without appearing to be hunting for votes, without the
public barely blinking an eye. It was a symbolic launch-pad for
confusion and chaos.
I ask the question, could the butterfly ballot have been a strategic
component of Gore's overall plan? Could the ballot have been
intentionally in place in order to setup the recounting plan?
To answer this, we must take a closer look at the behavior by
Democrats on Election Day, particularly in Palm Beach County.
The exact sequence of events on Election Day is still uncertain. But
it is clear the Democrats were panicking in Palm Beach County (or, as
I believe, implementing an alternative strategy.)
In the early morning, a Democrat lawyer contacted Teresa Lepore,
Democrat Supervisor of Elections, and began complaining about the
butterfly ballot. He insisted that people were confused and were
likely casting their votes improperly.
Soon, Florida Congresswoman Louis Frankel and U.S. Congressman Robert
Wexler also began pleading with Lepore. They insisted that something
was terribly wrong and that action must be taken to prevent people
from making mistakes. They claimed that the butterfly ballot was
causing confusion and hysteria.
As such, Teresa Lepore (who was actually the creator of the butterfly
ballot, working in her first year as Supervisor) felt overwhelmed and
sent a notice to all precincts. She instructed workers to help
citizens, to go the extra mile and remind them how to vote. They were
to tell voters only to select one candidate for President. (This
would indicate Democrats were concerned about overvoting, selecting
more than one candidate.)
Later, even though Lepore was acting in response to this pressure,
Robert Wexler decided to use this to his advantage by saying, "If that
doesn't indicate there's was a problem, I don't know what does."
Wexler convinced Lepore into sending out a notice to precincts then
acted as if she had done it all on her own.
(Keep in mind; this was done in the middle of Election Day. What did
Wexler, Frankel, and others want to happen? What else could be done
to correct the so-called ballot "problem"? Did they want to stop the
election? Did they want to change the ballot? What evidence did they
have that there was a breakdown or that voters were confused? Why did
Wexler, Frankel and others raise a storm in Palm Beach County?)
I also ask, what made Wexler, Frankel, and Lepore think that citizens
were overvoting? Did people come out of the voting booth saying, "The
ballot made me vote for two candidates"? Also, without yet viewing
the ballots, how did Wexler know people were having trouble selecting
Al Gore (even though his name was clearly written on the left side
under the word, "Democratic" and there was a big arrow next to his
name)?
Did they believe that the ballot was so confusing that citizens
couldn't select even one person (creating undervotes)?
What exactly did they believe was happening in the voting booths?
Robert Wexler was raising hell in Palm Beach County before anyone even
began to view the ballots, before there was any real empirical
evidence to suggest there was a significant breakdown or problem. He
muscled Lepore into believing that the election was a disaster and
that citizens were so confused they were impeded from voting
correctly.
And Wexler knew all of this without reviewing a single ballot.
Tabulation had not yet begun.
Rather than waiting to see if there was any legitimacy to the idea,
Wexler launched his campaign for Gore right then and there in the
middle of Election Day. He, along with several other Democrats, began
to foster a key ingredient that is traditionally found in a classic
coup d'etat. They were creating fear and chaos.
As you can imagine, Wexler was waiting anxiously to see if his
prediction would bare any results. And as the numbers came in, he
quickly seized upon them, seeking to validate his claim and save the
election for Gore.
"Larry, I have just received word that over 19,000 votes were
invalidated in Palm Beach County!"
Congressman Robert Wexler
Robert Wexler appeared on the Larry King Show to broadcast his message
just one day after the election. He said 19,000 people somehow had
their votes just cast away, thrown out for no reason.
Larry King responded, "Boy, if my vote was thrown out I'd be upset
to | | | | | |
