Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:57:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dick
Morris" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


1. Bush's lawyers, who went to court repeatedly in an attempt to shut
down
the manual recounts entirely in order to prevent the actual winner of the
election from being known.

No, they went to court repeatedly to prevent *selective* manual
recounts, which were not required by law, and which were being
performed not in accordance with normal procedure, in order to prevent
Gore's voters from stealing the election.

The law required requests for manual recounts to be filed with county
canvassing boards, and Gore requested recounts in counties where obvious
problems had occured in the original count. The law did not require a
statewide recount, and selective recounts were the rule rather than the
exception. The recounts were being done in accordance with procedures
established by the canvassing boards, as required by state law. Bush's
lawyers went to court to stop the recounts *entirely*, not because they
actually wanted a statewide recount. When the Florida Supreme Court ordered
a statewide recount they appealed to the US Supreme Court and got that one
stopped too.

Your belief that *voters* can "steal" an election - by voting for the
"wrong" candidate and actually having their votes counted - is an amusing
take on the democratic process.

"Jack Love" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:45:04 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:57:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dick
Morris" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


1. Bush's lawyers, who went to court repeatedly in an attempt to shut
down
the manual recounts entirely in order to prevent the actual winner of
the
election from being known.

No, they went to court repeatedly to prevent *selective* manual
recounts, which were not required by law, and which were being
performed not in accordance with normal procedure, in order to prevent
Gore's voters from stealing the election.

This seems to be a Democratic tradition, here in Washington our
gubernatorial election is within 100 votes (last I saw)...King County
check the red/blue county maps, keeps 'finding' more ballots that need
to be individually 'examined' to 'determine the intent' of the voters.
In the case of the State courts, they keep ruling: No that's against
the rules.


50 votes actually. And the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the
"intent" of the voters.

In the original count, the ballots in question (approx. 700) were improperly
classified as "invalid" because the signatures of those voters were not in
the computer data base - because they had not been digitized. The proper
proceedure would have been to pull the hard copy registration forms and use
them to check the signatures on the ballot return envelopes, and that is all
that King County is asking to do. Nobody has actually looked at the ballots
themselves, and the Republicans are desperate to prevent that from happening
because King county voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat.

Over 1,000 additional ballots were picked up, for both candidates, in the
manual recount in the rest of the state. The Republican candidate had
picked up something like an additional 200 net votes, at one point, largely
from eastern Washington where the Repulicans are strongest. Returns from
other counties in western Washington have reduced the net gain from the
manual recount to 8 votes, giving an advantage of 50 votes for the
Republican.

That leaves King County. The whole point of a recount is to correct errors
in the original vote count. The Republicans have no problem with correcting
errors in the counties where they are strongest, but they are using any
legal technicality they can think of to prevent this error in King County
from being corrected.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:26:45 -0800, in a place far, far away, Jack
Love made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

1. Bush's lawyers, who went to court repeatedly in an attempt to shut
down
the manual recounts entirely in order to prevent the actual winner of
the
election from being known.

No, they went to court repeatedly to prevent *selective* manual
recounts, which were not required by law, and which were being
performed not in accordance with normal procedure, in order to prevent
Gore's voters from stealing the election.

This seems to be a Democratic tradition, here in Washington our
gubernatorial election is within 100 votes (last I saw)...King County
check the red/blue county maps, keeps 'finding' more ballots that need
to be individually 'examined' to 'determine the intent' of the voters.
In the case of the State courts, they keep ruling: No that's against
the rules.

Yup, just keep counting until you get the "right" answer, even if you
have to manufacture votes.

Yup, just stop the counting while you're ahead so you don't have to know who
actually won.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

: "Dick Morris" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Then why does all available evidence indicate otherwise?
:
:
: You obviously have not looked at all the available evidence. A
careful
: examination of the ballots has shown that, had all legal ballots been
: counted in accordance with Florida law, Gore would have won under most
: reasonable criteria. Gore had every right to ask for manual recounts
in
: whatever counties he chose, and the recounts were never completed.
All of
: the available evidence shows that Bush's lawyers had a lot to do with
: that.
:

: You've obviously bought the propaganda and ignored the facts. There's
no
: question that Bush won Florida in 2000. By insisting otherwise you
simply
: mark yourself as an idiot.


Now there is a way to win an argument. Tell your opponent that they are
wrong because they believe in propaganda and you believe in facts and
anything otherwise makes you an idiot. Huh, ad hominem at its worst.

Steve, your side won and is in power, but don't think we are going to
slink and go away. Not on your life pal. Get used to it.

Ad hominem attacks are all they've got, because they can never get used to
the fact that anyone can honestly disagree with them.

Eric

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:02:03 -0800, "Dick Morris"
wrote:


"Jack Love" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:45:04 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:57:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dick
Morris" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


1. Bush's lawyers, who went to court repeatedly in an attempt to shut
down
the manual recounts entirely in order to prevent the actual winner of
the
election from being known.

No, they went to court repeatedly to prevent *selective* manual
recounts, which were not required by law, and which were being
performed not in accordance with normal procedure, in order to prevent
Gore's voters from stealing the election.

This seems to be a Democratic tradition, here in Washington our
gubernatorial election is within 100 votes (last I saw)...King County
check the red/blue county maps, keeps 'finding' more ballots that need
to be individually 'examined' to 'determine the intent' of the voters.
In the case of the State courts, they keep ruling: No that's against
the rules.


50 votes actually. And the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the
"intent" of the voters.

In the original count, the ballots in question (approx. 700) were improperly
classified as "invalid" because the signatures of those voters were not in
the computer data base - because they had not been digitized. The proper
proceedure would have been to pull the hard copy registration forms and use
them to check the signatures on the ballot return envelopes, and that is all
that King County is asking to do. Nobody has actually looked at the ballots
themselves, and the Republicans are desperate to prevent that from happening
because King county voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat.

Over 1,000 additional ballots were picked up, for both candidates, in the
manual recount in the rest of the state. The Republican candidate had
picked up something like an additional 200 net votes, at one point, largely
from eastern Washington where the Repulicans are strongest. Returns from
other counties in western Washington have reduced the net gain from the
manual recount to 8 votes, giving an advantage of 50 votes for the
Republican.

That leaves King County. The whole point of a recount is to correct errors
in the original vote count. The Republicans have no problem with correcting
errors in the counties where they are strongest, but they are using any
legal technicality they can think of to prevent this error in King County
from being corrected.


The problem is, of course, that they've already 'counted' the votes.
And the recount has already taken place. You don't get to keep
'finding' new votes.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dick Morris" wrote:

:The fact that his brother was a Republican helped a great deal. Had a
emocrat been governor, the butterfly ballot fiasco would have worked
:against the Republicans and Gore would have been president.

Dick, you *DO* know that the ballot for Miami-Dade that year was
designed and approved by DEMOCRATS, don't you?

Yes. And it was Palm Beach County.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
"Dick Morris" wrote:

:"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Dick Morris" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Had a
: Democrat been governor, the butterfly ballot fiasco would have worked
: against the Republicans and Gore would have been president.
:
: The butterfly ballot was created by a Democrat.
:
:True but irrelevant. Had a Democrat been governor and everything else
been
:the same, Gore would have won. Gore would have been listed first on the
:ballot and the butterfly ballot would have worked against Bush.

So if a Democrat had been Governor the ballot DESIGNED BY THE
DEMOCRATS would have been different?

Yes. Gore's name would have been listed first on the ballot, and the voter
errors that cost him thousands of votes would not have occurred. The fact
that the ballot was designed by a Democrat is still irrelevant.

Some people are so far into a river in Egypt that one has to wonder
how they manage to breath....

Don't forget to write ;-)
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dick Morris" wrote:

:3. The Republican majority on the US Supreme Court, who clearly
prejudged
:the case at the outset, and then used an extremely flimsy "equal
rotection" argument to shut down the statewide recount ordered by the
:Florida Supreme Court.

You leave out the little detail that pretty much every court in
Florida with the exception of the Democrat-dominated State Supreme
Court found against Gore. This includes the Chief Justice of the
Florida Supreme Court in his dissent, just by the way.

If you want to argue that the FSC majority decision was wrong, then feel
free to present your arguments. Why exactly was it wrong to order a
statewide recount?

Until you idiots figure out what Kerry apparently knew, judging by his
concession speech - that you have to win an election by what the
VOTERS want, not what your lawyers can pull, you will undoubtedly
continue to lose elections.

Determining the will of the VOTERS is EXACTLY what we wanted in Florida in
2000. When the automatic machine recount narrowed the gap to a fraction of
what it had been after the original count, Gore had every right, under
Florida law, to request a manual recount. He even had every right, under
Florida law, to request a recount in counties of his choosing. Bush had the
same right but chose not to use it. Instead, Bush's lawyers appealed all
the way to the US Supreme Court to prevent ANY manual recount from
happening. You might want to think about what Bush's lawyers pulled.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dick Morris" wrote:

:It is virtually certain that Gore would have picked up thousands of
:additional votes without the butterfly ballot factor. Even if no Bush
:voters had been fooled by the butterfly ballot, that would have been way
:more than enough to win.

Still stuck at Stage Two of Democratic Denial in the election from
FOUR YEARS AGO, Dick?

"Gee, if Democratic voters weren't so bloody stupid Gore would have
won."

That's hardly a telling endorsement of the folks you think would vote
for your guy, now is it? It does demonstrate what is wrong with YOUR
kind of Democrat, though. You think the voters are stupid and that
it's all about the political maneuvering. You're wrong twice.

It's all about the voters. They had their say. You lost in 2000 and
you lost in 2004. If the Democratic Party doesn't smarten up and punt
people like you, you'll probably lose in 2008, too.

The point was whether Gore would have won had the butterfly ballot factor
been working against the Republicans rather than the Democrats. The point
was not whether the people who voted for somebody other than the one they
intended to - a small minority of Gore voters - were stupid. Stupid people
are not my kind of people, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They
can all stay home on election day as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, I was a conservative Republican for about 30 years. I punted the
Republican Party about 15 years ago when they adopted the environmental
movement as their new villain following the demise of the Soviet Union.
Today, I would probably register as an "Independent" if we did that sort of
thing in this state.

The people the Democratic party really need to "punt" are the gay marriage
and unrestricted abortion zealots, plus the "gun-grabbers". And if you
think you know how I stand on those issues, you are probably wrong.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Jack Love" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:02:03 -0800, "Dick Morris"
wrote:


"Jack Love" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:45:04 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:57:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dick
Morris" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


1. Bush's lawyers, who went to court repeatedly in an attempt to
shut
down
the manual recounts entirely in order to prevent the actual winner of
the
election from being known.

No, they went to court repeatedly to prevent *selective* manual
recounts, which were not required by law, and which were being
performed not in accordance with normal procedure, in order to prevent
Gore's voters from stealing the election.

This seems to be a Democratic tradition, here in Washington our
gubernatorial election is within 100 votes (last I saw)...King County
check the red/blue county maps, keeps 'finding' more ballots that need
to be individually 'examined' to 'determine the intent' of the voters.
In the case of the State courts, they keep ruling: No that's against
the rules.


50 votes actually. And the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the
"intent" of the voters.

In the original count, the ballots in question (approx. 700) were
improperly
classified as "invalid" because the signatures of those voters were not
in
the computer data base - because they had not been digitized. The proper
proceedure would have been to pull the hard copy registration forms and
use
them to check the signatures on the ballot return envelopes, and that is
all
that King County is asking to do. Nobody has actually looked at the
ballots
themselves, and the Republicans are desperate to prevent that from
happening
because King county voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat.

Over 1,000 additional ballots were picked up, for both candidates, in the
manual recount in the rest of the state. The Republican candidate had
picked up something like an additional 200 net votes, at one point,
largely
from eastern Washington where the Repulicans are strongest. Returns from
other counties in western Washington have reduced the net gain from the
manual recount to 8 votes, giving an advantage of 50 votes for the
Republican.

That leaves King County. The whole point of a recount is to correct
errors
in the original vote count. The Republicans have no problem with
correcting
errors in the counties where they are strongest, but they are using any
legal technicality they can think of to prevent this error in King County
from being corrected.


The problem is, of course, that they've already 'counted' the votes.
And the recount has already taken place. You don't get to keep
'finding' new votes.

They are not "new". They were "counted" in the original tally as "invalid",
by mistake. The ballots haven't even been removed from their envelopes, but
the vast majority of them are no doubt legal ballots. Exactly why should
these ballots not be counted, especially since other, similar ballots have
been counted in other counties?