"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:c8TAd.7806$_X7.2131@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
"Brandon K. Montoya" <theintrepid@att.net> wrote in message
news:41D33835.DA740F9C@att.net...
Mark Cook wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:fo76t095bg8ub3dsi9ckrgd09qfp6ltdak@4ax.com...
From The Seattle Times, 12/29/04:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002133686_canvass29m.html
Counties opposing GOP call to reopen vote counts
By David Postman
OLYMPIA --
The Republican effort to find votes for gubernatorial candidate
Dino
Rossi is faltering as local election officials around the state --
even loyal Republicans -- are rejecting calls to reconsider
previously
rejected ballots.
Four county canvassing boards have met so far this week, and all
voted
against reopening their counts in the closest governor's race in
state
history.
A fifth board canceled its scheduled meeting and won't consider
the
Republican request.
The race is set to end, at least ceremoniously, tomorrow when
Secretary of State Sam Reed certifies Democrat Christine Gregoire
as
governor-elect.
________________________________________________________
Hey, Repugs, you lost. Get over it.
Why don't you want all of the votes to count Harry????
Oh, so now that the shoe is on the other foot you want a full count? Do
tell :^)
I really hate to rain on your parade, but the only problem with your
statement is that the shoe is still on the same foot. I have NEVER said
there should NOT be a recount.
rofl No, you just lie about them regularly.
Mark Cook Jul 19, 7:17 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: "Mark Cook" <m...@prodigy.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:17:50 GMT
Local: Mon, Jul 19 2004 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: Unprecedented - The 2000 Presidential Election - 2004 Campaign
Edition
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Fredda Weinberg" <fre...@unprecedented.org> wrote in message
news:b7dd7810.0407190318.1e90842f@posting.google.com...
Los Angeles Times
"Illuminating and persuasive...this film incisively lays bare
everything they say went wrong with the election in Florida."
If the this write up is anything like the film, it is just another
propaganda film that relies on half-truths and conspiracy theories.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election is the riveting story
about the battle for the presidency in Florida and the undermining of
democracy in America. Filmmakers Richard Ray Perez and Joan Sekler
examine modern America's most controversial political contest: the
2000 election of George W. Bush.
What emerges is a disturbing picture of an election marred by
suspicious irregularities, electoral injustices, and sinister voter
purges in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother. This
2004 Campaign Edition features new commentary by Danny Glover and a
new segment on the dangers of electronic voting machines.
. Features new material, including commentary by Danny Glover and an
update on electronic voting.
. Grand Festival award winner for documentary at the Berkeley Video
and Film Festival.
. Route 66 award winner for Best Documentary Feature at the Winslow
International Film Festival.
. Grand Jury Award Documentary and Directors Award Documentary at the
New York International Independent Film Festival.
. Audience Award for Best Documentary at the San Francisco Independent
Film Festival.
In "Unprecedented", filmmakers Richard Ray Perez and Joan Sekler bring
to light the injustices, foul play, and mischievous tactics used by
the Republican Party to ensure the election of George W. Bush. Perez
and Sekler present undisputed facts, interviews with key players close
to the election and a true and accurate portrayal of the shenanigans
(corruption) that took place in the state of Florida, and what emerges
is a disturbing picture of an election marred by suspicious
irregularities, electoral injustices, and sinister voter purges in a
state governed by the winning candidate's brother. Bonus footage
exclusive to the retail DVD release includes an interview with Gore
Vidal, more information on the voter purge and negligent media and a
section on organizing for democracy, as well as critical perspectives
on the election crisis.
Amongst the issues brought to light in "Unprecedented" is the unheard
of discrimination at the voting polls which African-Americans in
Florida encountered as thousands of them were purposely included on a
statewide felon purge list and denied their right to vote. This
Republican strategy was intended to suppress the democratic vote since
93 percent of African Americans are registered Democrats.
Nice conspiracy theory. The only problem is that only an election supervisor
can remove a voter from the rolls. In this case, the majority were
DEMOCRATS!!! IF you theory is correct, why did all of these DEMOCRATS want
to make sure these Gore voters were removed??
In another disturbing issue, more than 175,000 ballots were
uncounted by Florida's voting machines and no complete
hand recount was ever conducted. It was only a year later,
when a consortium of U.S. media organizations published
results of an exhaustive examination of these unread ballots,
that the conclusion was reached that Al Gore received
more votes
There were 179,855 disputed ballots of which the consortium checked 175,010.
This "recount" did NOT prove Gore received more votes. Why would you lie
about this?
and would have been the forty-third president of the United
States.
ONLY if Congress would have accepted that recount. Under the Electoral Count
Act of 1887, once a candidate has been certified, no court can remove those
electors. Bush was certified as a result of the remedy crafted by the
DEMOCRAT majority on the Florida Supreme Court.
One of the more idiotic myths going around is if the Supreme Court of the
United States had stayed out of the issue, Gore would be President. The fact
is if the Court has stayed out, any slate of electors sent by the Florida
Supreme Court would have been disqualified for violation of 3 U.S.C. section
5.
"Unprecedented" features interviews with many witnesses to the
undemocratic practices and the rise of corporate dominance in
elections that occurred in 2000. The actions of key players Jeb Bush
and Katherine Harris are closely examined, as are their ties and
loyalties to the Bush campaign.
Did they check the close ties and loyalties of Florida's Attorney General to
the Gore campaign? After all, he was Gore's Florida Campaign Chair.
Members of the NAACP, People for the
American Way and numerous political representatives repeatedly
describe the cut-throat mentality the Republican Party adopted in the
race for the presidency before, during and after the election.
Not since before the civil rights movement of the sixties have the
personal rights of citizens been so blatantly denied and disregarded
as in the 2000 Presidential election. "Unprecedented" is a
play-by-play documentary of the events that led up to George W. Bush
winning the presidency under questionable terms.
Did they investigate Gore? What about the illegal disqualification of the
overseas military ballots. These ballots were thrown out in violation of
Florida Code and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act.
Public information
that was not highly promoted by the media is presented in a
nonpartisan fashion, leaving the viewer to decide what happened to
democracy in America.
Just like the write up?
As we head into this political season, we should not forget the
outrage that was the 2000 election. Please consider bringing this
reminder to your community in time to make a difference this year.
For more information, please visit
No thank you, I have already seen enough.
Mark Cook Feb 11, 8:59 pm show options
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: "Mark Cook" <m...@prodigy.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:49:17 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 11 2004 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text,
....
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Raffael Cavallaro"
<raffaelcavall...@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message
news:2004021114165075249%raffaelcavallaro@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom...
Much of your post is a very confused misreading of what I wrote.
Despite quoting (as opposed to *citing*) large chunks of articles,
you're rambling post misses the very simple fundamentals:
1. The US Supreme Court prevented a statewide manual recount that would
have shown Gore the winner. That's *why* the Bush campaign appealed to
the US Supreme Court - the Bush campaign did *not* want the manual
recount to go forward - they knew that Gore would win if it did.
The media proved this reasoning to be false. First, there was not a full
statewide recount. There was only a recount of the 60,000 undervoted
ballots. That left 110,000 other disputed ballots unchecked.
Second, the NORC study recounted the votes as ordered by the FSC in Gore vs.
Harris on 12/8/2000 (the case that was reversed by the SCOTUS). They found
that Bush would have TRIPLED his lead, not lost the election.
Since the media recount proved (within their margin of error) that Bush
would have won, your point is invalid.
2. Two Conservative Republican Justices, Thomas and Scalia, acted
*illegally* by failing to recuse themselves even though each had a very
close relative (Thomas, his wife, Scalia, his son) with a substantial
interest in the outcome of the case. Absent these two votes, the US
Supreme court would have handed down the *opposite* decision, the
recount would have proceeded, and Gore would now be President of the US.
Again, as noted above, the recount would shown Bush as the winner. So this
point is invalid from the start.
Further, IF the recount (with counting standards deemed illegal by Judge
Sauls) was allowed to be completed. All Bush would have to do is file a safe
harbor complaint under 3 USC 5, and have all the state's electors thrown out
of the electoral college (as Judge Sauls - Democrat - noted was very
possible). Thus neither candidate would have the necessary 271 electoral
college votes to win the office. That would throw the vote into the
REPUBLICAN controlled congress. Of course, they would NOT have voted Gore
into office.
The other REAL possibility was because of what was perceived as the
violations of the Safe Harbor provisions. The Fla. Legislature may have been
able to sent their own slate of electors. It would have been up to the
Congress to pick the electors that would have been allowed to participate.
Again, as Judge Sauls (D) pointed out, Palm Beach County had illegally
changed their counting standards, thus the Republican Congress would have
picked the slate sent by the legislature, i.e. Gore would lose this contest.
With or without the SCOTUS, once the FSC issued the order to include ballots
recounted under an illegal standard, Gore lost.
3. Thousands of african americans, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters,
were either,
a. denied the right to vote at all, or,
Where is the proof? Both the Miami Herald and Palm Beach Post found
otherwise.
b. had their ballots invalidated in circumstances where white
voters were allowed to recast their ballots and have their votes count.
If this is true, why did the Democrats do this (you made the case against
the Democrats in the previous post).
Where is the proof that the Democrats were trying to throw the election to
Bush? And why would they?
a. was accomplished when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris hired a new
private firm, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, to illegally
put as many likely Gore voters on a "purge list" as possible, whether
they were really felons or not.
Where is the proof??? The USCCR could not prove this, how can you?
b. was accomplished by failing to provide voters in predominantly
african american counties with the opportunity to recast misread
ballots. This part is just simple racism operating here, not party
affiliation.
You can't run away from party affiliation. Since the DEMOCRATS were in
charge of those counties in your example in the previous post, they are
responsible for not allowing voters who spoiled their ballots, another
ballot to vote.
No matter how hard you try, the FACTS are the Democrats controlled the
elections in those counties (Gadsden and Leon). If you are going to lay
blame, you have no choice by to blame the Democrats. You can't blame
Republicans for the actions of Democrats.
The number represented by a is larger than that represented by b, and a
was orchestrated by George Bush's brother, and his brother's protege,
and chair of the Bush campaign in Florida.
Why did were the Democrats involve? You made the argument, but now you are
ignoring them?
The conclusion is quite straightforward, and doesn't require
complicated analyses of various court opinions to see: The Bush
campaign stole the Presidency by a combination of illegal means.
Your conclusion is invalid on every point. The fact is that you made the
case that the Democrats were out to make sure the Gore lost.
Now a few details:
On 2004-02-11 03:41:40 -0500, "Mark Cook" <m...@prodigy.net> said:
While you are tying to assert that the Republicans were biased in their
decision
No. Read what I wrote. I said *nothing* about any bias of the Florida
Supreme Court. I spoke about Jeb Bush, his appointees, and the *US*
Supreme Court.
Since Jeb Bush did not order the purge, not did he remove a single name from
the voting rolls. I not sure what you are talking about. Who are these
appointees that you speak of?
I wrote that the conservative Republicans of the US Supreme Court were
biased, so theyeither failed to recuse themselves as legally required
(Thomas and Scalia), or broke with their own states rights position to
overturn the ruling of a State Supreme Court (Florida) in a matter of
the interpretation of *State* election law.
That argument fails because it would not have put Gore into the white house.
Scalia and Thomas were both acting illegally by not recusing
themselves. This alone was enough to change the outcome of the case
before the US Supreme Court. All those Republican-appointed Justices of
the US Supreme Court who had previously staked out a position in favor
of states rights, acted in a biased and hypocritical manner, when they
overturned a state Supreme Court ruling in a matter of State election
law. Read the dissent - there were *no* issues of *federal* election
law raised in the Florida case.
3 USC 5 is a federal law. The dissent is clearly wrong. They argued that the
state did not have the right make election law (granted to them by the US
Constitution) that allowed for them to take advantage of the Safe Harbor
provisions in the US Constitution.
Nevertheless, stated advocates of
states rights overturned a State Supreme Court ruling in a matter of
State election law. Pure hypocrisy, resulting from party bias.
This is also false. The case was NOT about state's rights, it was about the
rights of the state legislature as spelled out by the US Constitution (Art
1, Sec 2, Cl 1).
What happened in Florida was about what candidate one supported, and
race. African americans were unlikely Bush supporters, so their votes
were less likely to be cast and counted fairly.
The example that you cited in your previous post makes the case that the
Democrats did not want voters who would support Gore to vote.
Whites were more likely
Bush supporters, so their misread ballots were recast, unlike the at
least 2000 such misread votes of african american voters.
Your example in the previous post was in a county where the Democrats hold
the majority. You are making the case that the Democrats were trying to
throw the election. Further, the majority of the voters in those were going
to vote for Gore no matter what race they were.
Whites were
also far less likely to be put on the "purge list" incorrectly.
Like in Miami-Dade? Where whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly
purged?
This is why Jeb Bush and Harris were happy to spend so much money to
contract
with a new private firm to increase the size of the "purge list." They
knew that those "purged" were likely Gore voters.
Where is the proof? The USCCR could not prove this, how can you?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
" Of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, more than 14,600 matched
a felon by name, birthdate, race and gender."
Which means that even your source can't account for close to 5000 who
were removed illegally. But the reality is worse still:
The did account for them. Remember they checked all 19,398 and could
only
find 1,104 who were wrongfully removed.
Wrong. They could only *verify* that 1,104 of the almost 5,000 who did
*not* match "a felon by name, birthdate, race, and gender" were denied
the right to vote illegally. That is, the Herald researchers proved to
their satisfaction that these 1100 people, who didn't match felon
names, etc., were definitely not former felons. That means that over
4,000 people were on the purge list who couldn't be matched to felons,
and whom Herald researchers couldn't verify were removed illegally.
I don't buy this reasoning, but that doesn't matter. You still have not
defeated the 5,643 illegal votes that were cast by felons.
But guess what - there's no legal requirement to *prove* to the Miami
Herald that you're not a felon to vote in Florida. You can only be
removed if the State can affirmatively show that you *are* a felon.
If you re-read the law as enacted by Gov Chiles (D), you will see this is a
false statement.
And those 4,000 people were on the list for *no* reason, other than being
black and/or likely Gore voters.
Where is the proof? The Democrat majority of the USCCR could not prove this,
how can you?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
