Oh, the irony.

http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/friday/south_county_2.html

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Answers

??? No irony here at all. Simple common sense says if you got fewer votes, you lose unless you do *something*, anything, to change the vote count. Why not, you have absolutely everything to gain and nothing to lose. Even if the count you lost is absolutely correct, you might still win the election if a couple of errors are made, inadvertently or, uh, otherwise, in the recount.

Clearly, neither party has a monopoly on poor losers.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Gee, maybe I should ask Tom Daschle if we should fly a few dozen congressional aides down there? Maybe have a nice party, after the riot?

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2001

Splint you are STILL defending the Florida fiasco? Geesh is stupidity a new style trend now?

If the election were held today Splint, whadda think would be the outcome? getting it yet? Can America survive 45 more months of this "idiots running the White House"? Done a terrific job for 3 haven't they?

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Hi, Droolie.

[Splint you are STILL defending the Florida fiasco?]

Sore losers are still sore losers, of either party. Just hoping for a different result is NOT a sufficient reason for a recount.

[Geesh is stupidity a new style trend now?]

No, you've been entirely consistent.

[If the election were held today Splint, whadda think would be the outcome?]

According to the polls, Bush would be the clear winner. Despite a bitterly disputed election, the substantial majority of the people think he's doing a pretty damn good job.

[getting it yet?]

Of course. You might try it yourself?

[Can America survive 45 more months of this "idiots running the White House"?]

No idiots are running the white house. And America will be better off than if the Gore forces were running the White House.

[Done a terrific job for 3 haven't they?]

Again, most people agree that they have. You may now return to your fantasy world. Try not to let your boogeymen terrify you too much.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

[Sore losers are still sore losers, of either party. Just hoping for a different result is NOT a sufficient reason for a recount.]

Oh then what a waste of resources. USSC felt it a tad more than whining, MOST did cept extremist nuts like yourself. Your reply is from a guy with a big fat ego trying to defend the ridiculous stance you spent many weeks defending. Course you will claim you "debate" for the sake of debating. You understand the whole Florida thingee was about "creating" votes out of thin air. Ya ok dip we all believe ya.

[No, you've been entirely consistent.]

Sorry any readers know Splint is well losing it. "I don't think any of them people represent us" or the ever popular "Fact is these politican types have limited power to effect much of anything". But feels it necessary to continue to defend his ridiculous position the whole Election about sore losers. Them be the majority of Americans who voted for the other guy. The folks from places IN the 21st Century. Folks who have lived a little. Folks who actually have feelings(gasp) and functioning neurons.

[According to the polls, Bush would be the clear winner. Despite a bitterly disputed election, the substantial majority of the people think he's doing a pretty damn good job.]

What polls? care to post links like you require of others in your arrogance(laziness)? Truth is Splint, many understand clearly how damn pathetic Bush is. What he is about. Who put him office. No mystery once ya hear the facts the Liberal Media ignores(rolflmao to this day on that one). Go get some data to support your SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY exaggeration.

[Of course. You might try it yourself?]

Don't worry I get it. What's not to get? Is this stuff difficult Splint? kinda like you wetting your pants over that big Y2k threat? Envy I am touched. Yes Splint the sad reality is a MORON like myself knows more than someone like yourself who knows-it-all. How can that be all knowing one?

[No idiots are running the white house. And America will be better off than if the Gore forces were running the White House.]

So far in 3 months I doubt it. Simple fact is YOU don't have a freaking clue sir, not one. No wonder you think Shrub not the major idiot he is. The spoiled rotten KID that he is. America is not better off===see value evaporated down on Wall Street for a bare minimum starter.

[Again, most people agree that they have. You may now return to your fantasy world. Try not to let your boogeymen terrify you too much.]

Again where are these people? on Unk's? Where are they Splint. Please do try and analyze the data. Tough for ya I know, but do try and "read-between-the-lines". History is repeating itself with our Splint. Overactive imagination? delusional? seeing only what you want to see?

Hate to break the news to ya but we are in a Crisis of Leadership Splint. Don't expect the sheep to understand that fully. Those in-the- know however are not fooled like you appear to be.

Wonder what Rush thinks of Dubya's carbon/dioxide Global Warming rap? Never you mind we will just forget all that cause Dubya just being fed "innaccurate data" from a bunch of Greenies no doubt.

Enjoy your Moron in office Splint, he will be the last from the wacko party for sometime I bet.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

BTW Splint, have you noticed an absence of others spewing your rhetoric? Gee maybe they are getting it, duh?

Just you, Ain't, Maria, nice company.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Sore losers are still sore losers, of either party. Just hoping for a different result is NOT a sufficient reason for a recount.

I agree, loosing an election is no reason for a recount. Loosing by a small margin with voting equipment that is known for being inaccurate is a valid reason to ask for a recount.

[If the election were held today Splint, whadda think would be the outcome?]

According to the polls, Bush would be the clear winner.

Whoa, you really don't believe that do you? There are an awful lot of people who's vote did not get counted that would make sure their chads were completely removed, who would make sure that they did not punch the second hole on the ballot for Gore as told in the instructions mailed to them, but would go down and make sure they punched the one next to Gore's name, still more people who would call or go to registration offices to make sure they were on the voting lists and had not been removed because another democrat in Texas had a name similar to them.
Not to mention all people offended by the Bush and republican supporters who used little self control in their portrayal of seniors, minorities and democrats. The new administration has done one thing after another to change the way a hell of a lot of people feel about having Bush in office. He promised to work with the democrats and try to work in a bipartisan way ~ yet he has appointed an extremely right wing cabinet, he has reneged on his environmental promises, his constitutionally illegal attempts at nullifying the statute of separation of church and state has mortified large groups of the American mainstream religious groups, as well as private citizens who do not want religion forced down their throats. I think you really don't know what has been going on in the background because of Bush getting the office. People who didn't care less about politics have been shocked out of their complacency because they didn't think the way Bush got office could possibly happen in this country. The sleeping masses have awoken. The old hippy generation have gotten fired up and are working towards saving all the positive advances that have been made in the past 30 years. No one claims Bush is turning the clock back on all the advances made, but he is attempting to undo a hell of a lot of positive non moneymaking orientated changes that have been made.

Despite a bitterly disputed election, the substantial majority of the people think he's doing a pretty damn good job.

No, the majority does not feel that way. Every time there is a poll - phone-in or web - email is sent to thousands of republican supporters through web mail list to encourage the members to flood the poll with their views. Polls that are self administered should no longer be considered accurate. The closest we can get to reality is by random "man on the street" or random phone polls. Another factor that may be influencing you into believing that Bush is doing a good job is where you are located.
It's pretty reasonable to live in the "old south" where Bush's beliefs are held and feel that everyone is happy with Bush's job performance because their views are being represented, while at the same time the majority of the country which has outgrown the "old south mentality" may be unhappy with Bush's job performance (or lack there of) as poor.

The country should be run according to the choices of the majority of people of the country, not by the mindset of a minority.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

Cherri:

So you seriously claim that any poll you don't like is rigged? How very convenient.

Meanwhile, polls as accurate as we know how to make them now find at least 2/3 of the public thinks Bush is doing a good job. I believe this satisfies anyone not married to denial.

As for recounts, I don't think your claim is practical. EVERY known voting method has a nonzero error rate. So it's possible for any election to be close enough for that error rate to be decisive. Now, if you think this is sufficient grounds for a recount, you are saying that all close elections should be contested. By observation, recounts ALSO have error rates, which tend to be considerably less random and more toward favoring whoever counts.

So the general policy of turning every close election over to committed people simply *because* they are close, boils down to at least creating the appearance that every close election is untrustworthy, no matter who ends up winning. Somehow, this doesn't strike me as a step in the right direction.

So I think if there is no overt reason to suspect foul play, even very close decisions should be allowed to stand. Elections contested for the sake of contesting ("nothing to lose" contests) simply rob the results of apparent legitimacy, NO MATTER WHO WINS. This is not helpful.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2001

2 polls please...

First is old(March 1st)http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=345

53% think Bush's Job preformance positive. This is however a negative drop of 11% from the month earlier and a full 2.5 weeks old. Anyone think this rating has improved since the Stock Market has fallen? Dow about -6.5%, NASDQ -13% in March alone. Depends as all of these polls do on the questions asked, format, and the like.

Here is a more up-to-the-minute poll indicating basically the same but not indicating the Stock Market fall has not swayed the basic 55% who think Junior doing a positive job(assuming these folks on this poll were about the same numbers March1)...http://www.msnbc.com/news/ 545729.asp

Dubya is riding what elected him...Hayseed. His handlers have succeeded in distracting attention away from Junior and onto Clinton. Same story they used during the election running against Bill and avoiding Gore. How long this will last is an open question. I think it is over now.

2/3rds Splint? 67%? BTW polls are polls. They are indicators which require analysis. We all know this and I am not required to explain this to you or anyone.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Splint go read them polls at zogby again if you are not clear on the difference between opinon of Dubya, and opinion of his performance.

SLOPPY THINKING there Splint.

Course does this stop you from daily bashing those of us who DO KNOW WHAT IN THE HELL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? spout we are biased? as if we do not read ALL THE FREAKING SIDES before arriving at opinion? doing so with an arrogance like you know shit bout anything? Look in the mirror for who don't know and who needs to open their eyeballs.

Rookie is what you are LOL.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

I think the irony is that the very same lawyers now stating that dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc. SHOULD be counted, some months ago were saying that these should NOT. They also added that wherever one can discern the intent of the voter, the vote should be counted. This has to do with the lawyers being the same and arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before than anything to do with close elections and poor losers.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Yes, Anita. That's exactly how I saw it.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Anita:

I think you're creating a distinction without a difference. Once again, if you got fewer votes the first count, you will LOSE unless you can find some way to change that count. To change it, you must recount. To recount, you need some reason to do so. ANY reason will do, however bogus, provided you get that recount. If you don't, you will LOSE.

Which party you belong to is irrelevant. Which lawyers you hire to help you doesn't matter. What those same lawyers argued last time was of course a function of who hired them. There is nothing ironic about lawyers attempting to produce the requested product, for which they are being paid. If they are paid to defend against a recount, they do so. If they are paid to attempt to provoke a recount, they do that. This is their job. They do what they are paid to do. If the winner hires them, they attempt to preserve the results. If the loser hires them, they attempt to change the results. This is what lawyers are for.

What's less obvious is that recounting close elections on a "nothing to lose" basis sets a questionable precedent. In order to win in the short term, politicians (and their hired lawyers) are willing to create the precedents that results are less meaningful, that ballots can be endlessly interpreted and can be "corrected" in favor of either candidate, and that whoever ends up with the office did so improperly, either by trying to prevent an "accurate" count, or trying to "reinterpret" ballots to achieve a desired different result (your interpretation depending on whether you stand to win or lose).

(As a footnote, I must say I feel completely vindicated by this. What you and Pam see as an "irony" I regard as clear proof that these recounts have *nothing* to do with "determining the real will of the voters" and *everything* to do with engineering a victory for whichever side hired the lawyers. These SAME lawyers make exactly the opposite arguments depending on who pays them. I simply don't like the idea of elections determined by who hires the better lawyers to "interpret the will of the people".)

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Pam: This is probably why folks distrust lawyers so much. In this case, it's like OJ's lawyer now defending Nichole. I'd like you to E- mail me, if you don't mind.

Cherri: You're correct. I haven't seen anything like this before. Folks normally content to let politics run its course are now joining enmasse to correct what they feel an abomination of justice. And, yes, the activists of the 60's and 70's have ALSO re-awakened from their slumber.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Flint: We posted at the same time.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Flint:

Of WHAT were you vindicated on this? You, personally, had NOTHING to do with this election. You've repeated, perhaps 35 times now, your opinion on how only the loser gains, and the winner has no interest, etc., and have even expressed your opinion on the press recounts which are still taking place.

IMO, these exercises are about educating the voters. We've been taught since early childhood that voting is important, but nobody ever told us that if we filled in the circle for our candidate and then came upon a line that said, "Fill in the name of your candidate" that our vote would be thrown out as an over-vote if we followed the instructions.

I hate to bring it up, but you mentioned a year or so ago how your brother had died believing he'd never been wrong. You might look to familial traits in that area.

In addition, the election results in Florida are NOT simply being addressed by the losers. If that were the case, it would be purely a "party" thing. I've talked to many Republicans who wanted Bush to win, but just can't come to grips with the way this election went down. Their concern is the same as mine. If our vote is so damn important, it's important that we KNOW why it was invalidated.

I'm laughing now, as I realize that I'm throwing upon YOU the heat I feel towards Republicans who are trying to get the press to back off on the review they're doing of the ballots. These people fear the results will demonstrate that the wrong person was placed in the White House. Some people already agree with that, but, IMO, the results of the press review will show people WHERE they went wrong. It's about time they knew.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Anita:

[nobody ever told us that if we filled in the circle for our candidate and then came upon a line that said, "Fill in the name of your candidate" that our vote would be thrown out as an over-vote if we followed the instructions.]

Well, I know that the ballots I would face were published several times in my local newspaper before the election, along with detailed instructions on how to fill them out. Also included was a caveat that if we did it wrong, our ballot would not count. Following the directions was emphasized.

Now, if nobody ever told you that if you made a mistake you would be mistaken, I can hardly feel very sorry for you. On the other hand, I agree that ballots should not be easy to screw up, nor misleading in any way. If they are, such ballots need to be corrected *before* the next election, and not "interpreted" afterwards according to who hired the better lawyers.

[I've talked to many Republicans who wanted Bush to win, but just can't come to grips with the way this election went down.]

And I'm one of them. I really am. In my opinion, the way this election went down, there *could not* be a legitimate winner. We simply do not have any graceful means of handling an election where the number of sincerely disputed ballots exceeds the margin of victory. I also believe we are learning (the voters are being educated, if you will) that *every* election has a veneer of irregularities, some intentional and most not. If the election is close enough, it's possible that an irregularity decided it. And though you're tired of hearing it, it remains true that only the losing side will look for these. The appearance created is that winners of close elections always cheated.

[These people fear the results will demonstrate that the wrong person was placed in the White House. Some people already agree with that, but, IMO, the results of the press review will show people WHERE they went wrong.]

Here we go again. I continue to predict that both candidates will win *at least one* of these various recounts going on. To me, this would indicate that the election was simply too close to call, and the "winner" was entirely arbitrary. But I'll also wager that partisans will select the result of their preference as "proof" that their guy really won. And partisans will point to any count(s) the other candidate won as "proof" that the other side cheated. I regard a recount by the press as being just as arbitrary as any other.

So what I feel vindicated about, is my claim that recounts are not motivated by a desire for greater accuracy. That's pure spin. They are motivated by a desire to reverse the outcome. Certainly the lawyers understand this clearly enough.

And incidentally, I sincerely do not know who won the election. I don't believe this is knowable.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Splint, in Miami/Dade there were many hundreds of ballots where the punches ended up in places indicating nobody. WHY? Because the sample ballots when used in the booth did not line-up with the holes unseen by the voter underneaththe desk. As far as they knew everything was aboveboard and the "actual ballots" were indentical to the samples thus the use in the ballots to save time. Doing the "template strategy" meant one was shit-out-of-luck.

As a result of this you had a bunch of Gore votes go in the trash as void.

Swell reading your same-old replys over-and-over again to this issue (zzzzzzzzz). Not about what you always dump on frankly. About clear mistakes affecting many hundreds if not thousands of voters and ballots. Not that could possibly matter of course.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Doc:

I agree those were really lousy ballots. I agree that they made it entirely too easy for people to cast invalid votes. I certainly hope this mistake is corrected before the next election, and I have every reason to believe it will be.

I don't like the crappy old voting technology being relegated to the poorer precincts or counties either. We need a new and better way of funding the purchase of voting equipment so that poor precincts don't disenfranchise their people with worn-out broke-down leftovers. I don't know how quickly this will happen, but I favor it.

In fact, this election caused us to look extremely closely at ALL out procedures, and as a result we came up with a long list of things NOT to do, and things to be corrected. And for all we know, all of these things taken together may have produced the wrong winner (BUT my point is STILL valid that only the losing side looks for this stuff).

However, these are all lessons to be applied to the next election. What's past is past, and we really do not want to set a precedent of changing the rules after the election, no matter how justified this might look to the losing side. Those people should realize that *they* might win a close one next time, and see it taken away from them because of principles they themselves created. The rules *must* be created *before* the election, and agreed to by both parties. *After* the election, the parties will never agree to renege so as to reverse the outcome.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Agreed!

I would submit Nevadas experience from the 1996 election til the last one, as a model for how it can be done.

We went from lines of hundreds in few polling places, to voting weeks in advance if one chose at the shopping malls. All using electronic means at the polls. Be nice to see the absentee thingee go away MHO. Way you do it is open the polls weeks in advance. Also tends to make all the last-minute jockeying by these Politicians moot in a sense.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Doc:

Yes, fine with me so long as once you vote, that's it. You can't unvote and change your mind, regardless of how early you voted. And of course we need a pretty foolproof means of making sure you don't spend those several weeks wandering around the state voting over and over in different places. But I'm sure we can deal with the logistics.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Here we go again. I continue to predict that both candidates will win *at least one* of these various recounts going on. To me, this would indicate that the election was simply too close to call, and the "winner" was entirely arbitrary. But I'll also wager that partisans will select the result of their preference as "proof" that their guy really won. And partisans will point to any count(s) the other candidate won as "proof" that the other side cheated. I regard a recount by the press as being just as arbitrary as any other.

Here is where you and I see the press recount differently. The press is not simply looking at ballots, divining the vote, and throwing it into one pile or the other. This has NEVER been their goal, and many of the newspapers involved stated upfront that they wouldn't even release the results of their findings regarding a winner. The press is looking at undervotes and overvotes in an attempt to determine the HOW/WHY of both.

If they do their job, and do it well, the errors made will be identified and folks won't need to read a newspaper to know that if they fill in the circle AND write in their candidate their vote will be thrown out. They'll hear it at the barbership, or the beauty parlor, or somewhere else, because people who made this type of mistake will be talking about it SOMEWHERE. If punched-card units are still presented in 2002, I expect to see old folks coming to the polling place with a hammer to pound that stylist into the chad. I expect them to pull out a magnifying glass and ensure that their chads were completely removed. Actually, I expect MORE than all this. I expect voting machines which will tell a voter who they picked for EACH position and ask them if this is what they REALLY wanted before the vote ever gets to a count.

I'll be doing my own one-person lobby for the latter expectation, but in the meantime, I won't deride those who KNOW their votes were thrown out.

Regarding all the other voting "problems" that occurred in Florida, the press should be publishing the results of the Florida Commission, as well as the results of the Federal Commission, if they're doing their job. Personally, I got sick from listening to some folks complain about Jesse being in Florida [stirring up trouble.] Jesse doesn't go places to stir up trouble. He responds to allegations reported to the Rainbow Coalition. He's in a position, as an activist for black folks, to publicize the allegations. Two things come from his actions: Investigations are done to see if there's any truth to the allegations. Folks all over the nation who may have encountered the same type of disenfranchisement feel free to report their experiences, which, in turn, ALSO get investigated.

I forgot the name of the company who published the list of felons for Florida, but I remember them glibbly stating that they expected to get a LOT of business after this election. If they get ONE client after this experience, IMO, it would be one too many. I'll be doing my one-person lobby against them also.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Anita, it's Database Technologies, a subsidiary/division of ChoicePoint. On ChoicePoint's home page, they very proudly announce that they testified before one of the commissions.

'Sumer posted on another thread on this board that ChoicePoint was the "owner" of the insurance reports she has to deal with -- and they are invariably almost always ***wrong***.

I found that simply amazing.

NOT.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Thanks, Patricia. I have the name written down somewhere, but I have so much written down somewhere that I can't keep track of the somewheres.

I remember seeing or reading the testimony on this one. The company claimed that they stated that the data was unverified and that verification needed to be done at the other end. Why anyone would pay all that money for a database of unverified data is beyond me. So the commissioner asked, "Who was responsible for verifying the data?" The folks in Florida all said, "It wasn't me." The commissioner just shook her head and said, "So we have a situation where NO ONE is accepting responsibility?" [paraphrased, of course]

So Harris sent out the list to all precincts with explicit instructions that the list MUST be used. SOME precincts followed those instructions. I don't know what the punishment might have been for not. OTHER precincts threw the list out, saying, "We've dealt with these lists before and there are too many errors for us to use them." The ineptitude boggles my mind.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Well, one report that I recall had the local election "commissioner" (or whatever that position is called locally) who refused to use the list because she was on it and she was never even arrested, nevermind convicted.

The lists were never verified for accuracy. They were told to use them "as is". And people still refuse to believe there was any fraud.

It boggles the mind.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

You do realize none of this probably matters to a Bush supporter. My guess is the rationalization goes something like this.."once a criminal, always a criminal", so too bad.

Same hatred holds for them Black Folk who just "unfortunately" screwed-up(hahaha). Old folks too, Jews, hell anyone not like us, a WhiteWinger. Anyone so stupid they can't read directions deserved to get their vote tossed. Course if you be an WhiteWinger Absentee voter, and neglect to include your voter ID number on yur ballot, as 10,000+ did, we'll just have our boys sit for a week and "fix all that" so justice be done. Illegal? nay these involved the good folks we can bend the rules a little.

Besides like your opinion matters Anita and Trish? you are women, "get back in the kitchen and bake me some pie". Hell you two are WORSE than women, you gots brains too. Hillary has one as well, they love Hillary.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Anita:

I am emphatically in favor of digging deep into this election, finding everything that went wrong, and looking for ways to improve it. There is no substitute for good hard data -- number and distribution of every kind of mistake we can find. Without such data, we cannot efficiently or intelligently correct our problems.

[This has NEVER been their goal, and many of the newspapers involved stated upfront that they wouldn't even release the results of their findings regarding a winner. The press is looking at undervotes and overvotes in an attempt to determine the HOW/WHY of both.]

Well, OK, I guess my false impression came from the front-page article in my local newspaper, taken from the national wire, that started off saying "The Miami Herald, speaking for a consortium of newspapers, today declared that Bush would have won the hand recount in any case." And the consortium's goal in this enterprise was described as being "to determine who would have won if a full recount had been allowed to go forward." To me, this seems pretty explicit.

And as you recall, Cherri wrote back to this and Unk's forum with numbers from a website called "GoreWonFlorida.com", data provided by someone called "democrats.com", saying "current actual counts" had Gore way ahead! And this was followed by the two sides beating one another over the head with their preferred results. Just as I predicted.

I have also seen claims matching yours -- that the newspapers just altruistically want to identify specific problems with an eye to getting them approved through proper channels. All I can say is, if that was the goal, it is NOT how it's being presented.

I agree that ChoicePoint blew it, and deserves no more contracts. But I won't go along with Patricia's willingness to imply a conspiracy, or that ChoicePoint was hired to deliberately bias the election. If they are that incompetent, I can only wonder about their competition. This might just be a case of going with the low bidder and getting what you pay for...

I don't automatically assume that any incompetence that works against me must ipso facto be fraud. Do our local Ashton and Leska (Patricia and Droolie) seriously believe that Harris went through all these lists name by name, personally validating that to the extent they were incorrect they would harm the opposition, before deciding they were probably better than nothing? The state had paid to have a job done, and nobody was responsible for ensuring that it was done properly. I imagine this problem has been rectified as well.

To me, we're seeing a clear case of attributing to malice what is better explained by stupidity.

Footnote to Droolie: If death-by-slogan were a reality, you'd have wiped out the entire race by now. Pretty neat...

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

"Do our local Ashton and Leska (Patricia and Droolie) seriously believe that Harris went through all these lists name by name, personally validating that to the extent they were incorrect they would harm the opposition, before deciding they were probably better than nothing?"

Uh, no Splint, I don't think that was the case. The FACTS state that when Harris was handed the list, she was TOLD they hadn't been fact-checked.

That alone signals, at the very least, INCOMPETENCE on her part.

Fraud? Quite possibly. After all, we know White Republicans aren't criminals ;-)

Now when you can address people in the right manner, so, too, shall you be addressed.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Oh, and BTW, All-Knowing and All-Seeing One, where exactly did I say (or even IMPLY) that "...ChoicePoint was hired to deliberately bias the election..."?

Oh, to be so Unbiased; so All-Knowing; so Flint.

No thanks.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Patricia:

My understanding is that the key difference between incompetence and fraud is, in the former case mistakes were inadvertent and in the latter they were deliberate. When you say someone committed fraud, you are saying that they did something *on purpose*, to effect a desired, deliberate result.

Now, with respect to ChoicePoint's lists, you write "And people still refuse to believe there was any fraud. It boggles the mind."

So you are saying somewhere here we have a deliberate attempt to bias the election -- to commit fraud. NOT a case of hopeless incompetence, but a case of intentional disenfranchisement for the purpose of introducing bias. It boggles your mind that anyone would refuse to believe that this was done on purpose, fraudulently. That's what you said.

In my opinion, Harris should have rejected the lists as soon as she learned they had not been validated. I don't know whom she expected to do the validating, maybe the precincts themselves? I don't know what, if any, procedures were in place for this.

IF no procedures were in place, and IF she had no authority to require the precincts to do the validation, or IF the precincts lacked the resources and she knew it, THEN we have incompetence. But a lot seems to be going on here about which we both lack any salient data. I won't assume fraud (deliberate disenfranchisement of selected people to influence the election) until I have these data. I agree that IF there was fraud, someone needs to be punished.

And I always address you as Patricia, because you are willing to think about what you write and try not to jump to unsupported conclusions. You're much more like me -- you use the data at hand to try to make your preferences look reasonable. Compare this with droolie, who *starts* with unsupported conclusions, takes fraud for granted, needs no data, and regards guilt by association as the tightest logic he knows. And even so, I address him as Doc on the rare occasions where he makes sense.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

No, Flint, what I said was that EITHER she was incredibly incompetent or there was deliberate fraud. Yes, I would be inclined to believe it was fraud, because she was TOLD the lists were NOT checked for accuracy, yet she "ruled" that they should be used "AS IS". The timing is irrelevant because, as you stated, if there was enough time prior to election day, they should have been checked. If there wasn't enough time, they should never have been used. Either way, Our Dear Ms. Harris (R-Really Close "Pal" of the Illegitimate President's Brother, Who Just Happens to be the Governor of the State in Question), BLEW IT and should be held responsible. Instead she's given a **primo** spot on the Council on Foreign Relations. Nice job, if you can get it.

What would YOU call it given the circumstances? I can just hear the right-wingnuts if it was Democrats.....

But the larger issue here is this: Why it is so difficult for someone with obvious intelligence to believe that this whole "election" was about putting Junior in the White House at any cost, including, but not limited to, election fraud? It wasn't hard for you to believe the Democrats were guilty of it, yet for some reason you can't seem to see that it's possible, and even probable, that the Republicans were/are guilty of it.

That's what I don't get, Flint. When you can come up with a rational explanation for that, without parrotting the same party line you've been saying since November, then we'll talk.

BTW, yes, Pam, it is the ULTIMATE irony.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Patricia:

You do not permit me any answer but yours. I readily agree that both sides have engaged in fraud in the past, and I recognize that in politics, winning is everything and the only rule is "don't get caught". However, I'm willing to presume innocence, *for both sides*, until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't recall having presumed ANYONE is guilty just because I voted against them.

And I just agreed (but I'll do it again) that IF the situation is as you describe, then Harris was at the very least delinquent in her duties. But forgive me if I don't believe either that you have the complete story, or that you'd tell it all straight if you had it. When responsible officials demonstrate what Anita called mind- boggling ineptitude, it has been my experience that this conclusion tends to be based on a tiny, carefully misrepresented percentage of the relevant information.

And surely you can admit that you and Anita would like to find Harris behaved with something between total stupidity and deliberate criminality, just as strongly as I'd like to learn that she acted properly. I don't know the whole story and I don't believe you do either. But hell, I won't even believe *democrats* are that stupid.

Also, your clumsy parenthetical effort to smear with guilt by association is beneath you. Or am I permitted to imply (sneer, sneer) that Clinton's brother (wink wink) solicits blowjobs from teenagers. After all, they "just happen" to be brothers...

Finally, I insist there's no irony in learning that the losers of very close elections might try to reverse the outcomes. Where is the irony in this? It seems absolutely normal and predictable to me.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001