THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!

Avatar for mrsed4
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!
54
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 9:30pm
Fla. Lawmaker Says 2000 Election 'Stolen'

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Think the passions from the 2000 presidential election have cooled? Certainly not in the House, which voted Thursday to strike a Florida representative's words from the record after she said Republicans "stole" that closely fought contest.

The verbal battle broke out after Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., proposed a measure barring any federal official from requesting that the United Nations (news - web sites) formally observe the U.S. elections on Nov. 2.

Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., and several other House Democrats have made that suggestion. They argue that some black voters were disenfranchised in 2000 and problems could occur again this fall.

"We welcome America to observe the integrity of our electoral process and we do not ask, though, for the United Nations to come as monitors at our polling stations," Buyer said.

"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again," Brown said. "Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said, 'Get over it.' No, we're not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world."

At that point, Buyer demanded that Brown's words be "taken down," or removed the debate's permanent record.

The House's presiding officer, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ruled that Brown's words violated a House rule.

"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.

When Brown objected to his ruling, the House voted 219-187 to strike her words.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_go_co/house_florida_fight_1&printer=1

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 6:47pm
All the *legal* votes, all the "valid" votes were counted, yes.

"Anybody who followed the events following the 2000 election can tell you that the decision was made by Katherine Harris and the conservitive supreme court to GIVE the state to ol' GWB."

The USSC didn't give Bush anything. It ruled that Florida couldn't change the criteria for what counted as a legal vote after the votes had been cast (dealing with the different criteria in different counties). It also ruled that the endless recounts should be halted for at least two reasons... since there was little reason to suspect yet another recount would alter the result, and because there was insufficient time before Constitutionally mandated deadlines for another recount to be completed anyway.

In other words, the Supreme Court let the votes speak for themselves, and ruled that federal election laws must be observed. They didn't give anything to Bush or anyone else.

"Those of you who simply say what ever you want to be true are falling right into the same trap as the current administration."

We're not saying "what we want to be true". We're saying what actually IS, and what WAS. The *legal* votes in question were counted. No matter how many times you count an illegal, invalid ballot, it remains an invalid ballot. That's what's true.

~mark~

Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 3:52am
I stand corrected. I had assumed from various sources I had read that an ex-felon, in the US, once having served their time and not re-committed any crime, would be restored their rights. (Isn't the US, with the highest percentage and highest actual number of citizens in jail of the free world, afraid they will run out of eligible voters?)

I hadn't considered the arms issue since, as a Canadian, we don't view the "right to bear arms" as a right. Everyone must undergo a police check and any conviction for a violent crime automaticaly negates that persons ability to purchase either a firearm or ammunition.

Furthermore, in Canada, a person in jail does not loose their right to vote, merely because they are serving time and we certainly don't remove that right once they are free again. As sarcastically pointed out on a comedy show in Canada, we don't see anything wrong with a crook in jail voting for a crook in government.

I know the issue of UN supervision is actually being discussed in Florida. Only recently 40,000 names had to be returned to the current voting lists once it was proven that the list of names contained a multitude of errors. The list was heavily weighted against the black community, which in Florida votes predominantly Democrat, and with very few names from the Hispanic community, which in Florida tends to vote Republican.

In regards to Palast's book, it is not merey rhetoric but contains documented lists, names and numbers of people improperly disengranchised of their vote during the 2000 election. That would be merely old news were it not for the same shenanigans showing up again for the upcoming election.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 4:27am

Hello deanmuchmore!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 6:13am
Mark we met here almost 4 years ago after the elections... you think anything has changed?

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2004
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 8:19am
--

But I don't see that this was a conspiracy, Republican or otherwise.

--

Yes, a mere coincidence perhaps?

We have the Co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign in Florida, who is the Sec. of State of Florida. We have the Governor of Florida who is Dubya's brother. Both worked with Database technologies to create this felon filter. The creators of the software are on record as saying they were told to cast too wide a net and warned of thousands of false positives.

Hey, I'm not going to whine about the 2000 election. I supported Bush in 2000.

But coincidence? Ick.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 9:34am
Well, that's kind of a broad question, but I'll presume you're alluding to the conditions/situations which led to the chaos in Florida in 2000.

Short answer, I don't know. One would think that significant steps would have been taken over the last four years to prevent that kind of nonsense from being repeated, but you never can tell until you try the new system out, see if people pay attention to the details. After all, there *was* even in 2000 a law on the books in Florida which made the hanging/pregnant/dimpled/etc. chads a non-issue if the counties in question had bothered to make note of it. But they didn't, and hadn't been for some time.

So I really don't know. I'm hoping they've got their act together this time around, but I'm not about to make a call one way or the other.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 9:39am
Could be. After all, we ARE talking about a bureaucracy here, and they aren't exactly known for taking precise, carefully monitored actions where individual records are concerned.

Now, *could* it theoretically have been a planned action? Possibly, but as I noted, I don't believe it was. Things of that nature are too difficult to conceal.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 9:49am
Well, it's not really that cut-and-dried here, as you have both federal and state statutes to contend with on many issues, and the respective states are free to set their own particular laws in regards to restoration of the right to vote.

As far as the right to firearms, just like all our other Constitutional rights it isn't absolute. They all have limitations or restrictions in some regard or to some degree. Here (as well as in Canada) you have to submit to a federal background check (the NICS) in order to purchase a firearm from a dealer, and convicted felons (as well as some misdemeanor offenders) lose their right to purchase or possess firearms.

"As sarcastically pointed out on a comedy show in Canada, we don't see anything wrong with a crook in jail voting for a crook in government."

LOL! I like that, have to remember it.

"I know the issue of UN supervision is actually being discussed in Florida."

I haven't heard that, but it doesn't really surprise me. But I don't support that move in any event.

"Only recently 40,000 names had to be returned to the current voting lists once it was proven that the list of names contained a multitude of errors."

Good. If errors were made they certainly need to be corrected, late though it may be.

"In regards to Palast's book, it is not merey rhetoric but contains documented lists, names and numbers of people improperly disengranchised of their vote during the 2000 election."

It happens, for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate and some creative. But I don't feel the need to let Palast tell me things I'm already familiar with. And from the title of the book, it's pretty clear that he's out to present a conclusion which I cannot personally justify.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 1:52pm












A handful of representatives

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 4:29pm
"The only point the Dems are trying to make is that with an independent observation team, the fairness of this next election can be assured. "


This is the part that really irritates me about the goings-on in Florida. Remember the entire butterfly ballot problem and how we kept hearing the ballot was illegal and a ploy of the right to confuse voters? Many walked away with that impression, but it was the Dem. Party that designed the ballot. They just tried to make political hay and accuse underhandedness on the Rep. Party when things didn’t go their way. I’d like a fair vote too, but I just see these types of false accusations being made by the left that get propagated when the right was clearly not at fault. I also don’t like the falsehoods in political ads, but then again I make the assumption they are filled with half truths or outright lies anyway (as I think most do) so I do not see them as causing as much harm.