More voices coming out against Gore

[Gunthr]

From Foxnews.com:

Editorial: The Hijacking
Of the Presidency
Monday, November 13, 2000
     
 
"The theft of the presidency proceeds apace.
A hand count of electoral returns has either begun or is about to begin in several heavily Democratic Florida counties — a shockingly subjective undertaking, front-end-loaded to deliver the Sunshine State, and thus the White House, to Vice President Al Gore.

But before that happens, the veep and his high-powered sidekicks need to think long and hard about what they'll do with a presidency that would amount to stolen property.

That is, a presidency devoid of moral authority to govern — a prescription for civil dissonance that will make the Clinton years seem like small beer in comparison.

We understand that the counting of ballots is part of the political process — that politicians are, of necessity, involved.

But too much is enough. The "recount" is swarming with Democratic Party operatives — not one of whom had the decency to do what George Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, did at the outset: recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

By now, all America has seen the result: the Florida "hand recount."

This involves putting a disputed ballot up to a lamp and attempting to divine what it was the voter intended to do — as opposed to what he or she actually did.

But that's not a recount.

That's egg-candling. And mind-reading.

There's nothing objective about it. Or fair.

And it's wholly unacceptable as the means by which title to the presidency of the United States of America is delivered to anyone — let alone the guy who lost the state to George W. Bush, pending the opening of absentee and overseas ballots.

Bush won the state on the up — by a nano-whisker, to be sure. But he won.

Then he won the various recounts.

And that should be good enough.

But, of course, it's not.

Not to Al Gore. And not to Bill Daley of Chicago, the head mechanic in this broad-daylight effort to hot-wire the presidency and drive it off to Nashville.

Happily, lawyers for Gov. Bush will be in federal court this morning. Their mission: to stop this sham, and to freeze the process in place until Friday — when the absentee and overseas ballots are opened and counted.

And that should be the end of it.

Would that be fair? Yes.

Would it be perfect? Of course not.

But compared to what was going on all day yesterday — Democrats combing through their most reliable precincts, grubbing for the handful of votes they need to elect their candidate — it is the difference between night and day.

Between right and wrong.

Between a legitimate presidency and electoral piracy.

Between a domestically governable country and ceaseless political discord.

Between the beacon of democracy and reason that America has long been in a fractious, dangerous world — and the abyss.

That much is at stake this morning.

Nothing less."

---------------------------------------------

Gunthr
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


   

 

[Dowding]

Editiorials count for nothing really - especially ones from an organisation owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Look at the editorials over here recently [paraphrased]:

One week in august:

"Damn those cowardly French blockaders who want lower fuel tax, causing France to grind to a halt for their own selfish motives."

One week in September:

"A big thanks to the heroic English blockaders who want lower fuel tax, to help save their businesses."

Guess who owned the paper who printed editorials like those given - Rupert Murdoch!

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-13-2000).]

[miko2d]

   

Originally posted by Dowding:
Guess who owned the paper who printed editorials like those given - Rupert Murdoch!

Dowding,
 That would indicate that R. Murdoch owns the papers but does not interfere with the editors. That the editors and journalists in his employ are free to represent all views and opinions.
 That the profits from the newspapers advocating certain views may be used to subsidize the newspapers advocating the opposing views.
 He seems to be a shrewd businessman and a principled man who does not mix business with politics - an example for us all.

 Or would you have prefered him to convert every newspaper he bought to print the same stuff?

 If it was the same editor who wrote the two articles you referred to, he would be a dolt, but hardly any fault of R. Murdoch.

 P.S. I do not know what kind of press you have, but here in US it is quite common for the same newspaper to publish the articles with opposing views. That is called "discussion".

miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Dowding]

Rupert Murdoch - an example to us all?! Are we talking about the same man?

You miss my point entirely Miko - I'm talking about the published editorials of a newspaper, not the individual reporters within the newspaper. The editorial, as far as I understand, represents the stance of the publication on a particular issue. My point is that to trust the consistency of the editorial of a newspaper is a little naive. It is quite possible that next week, month or year the editorial does a complete u-turn and supports the opposite view.

I know of very few newspapers that don't have a 'theme' - i.e. conservative, left-wing, pro-establishment etc. Of course there are exceptions.

PS. If you think 'The Dirty Digger' (Murdoch) has no control of his editors, I think you're living in a dream world. He often uses his newspapers to plug his services etc - often 'inventing' news stories to highlight how good his media products are. A little ethically dubious, if you ask me.

[CavemanJ]

Every editorial I've read has been solely the opinion of the one writing it.  Never heard of an editorial representing the stance/position of an entire newspaper before

[Gunthr]

From US News and World Report:

By Gloria Borger

The perfect storm
The Clinton legacy: Leave it up to the lawyers


It must have been so comforting for Al Gore when Bill Clinton phoned in just after 4 o'clock Wednesday morning. Florida was hanging in the balance; so were Gore's chances to replace Clinton. The president, ever the consultant in chief, congratulated Gore on his improving numbers. Then he and Gore had a chuckle about what Clinton called "the unpredictability of life." Ha, ha.


But wait. Maybe, post-Clinton, this wasn't so unpredictable. Not the close election and not its wild aftermath: the challenges and counterchallenges, the mutual claims of moral rectitude, the conviction of each side that it was acting to preserve the national firmament. Didn't we hear that during impeachment? It's a fitting legacy to the Clinton years–a messy election, a politically charged aftermath, a fight to the finish. And when all else fails, let the lawyers take over.


Only in a post-Clinton world could Richard Nixon be held up as the very picture of statesmanship. He decided 40 years ago not to contest the election–despite word of massive voter fraud in Chicago and Texas. "The effect," he wrote, "could be devastating to America's foreign relations. . . . Charges of 'sore loser' would follow me through history and remove any possibility of a further political career." In truth, Nixon is not a completely apt model: Gore's election is much, much closer. In fact, Gore's predicament could make him a truly sympathetic figure for the first time; his popular vote victory preserves his stature as the leader of the Democratic Party–which, if he finds a way to make peace with Bush, could come in handy in four years. But, if he decides to buy the lottery ticket now, he has to win it.


Been there, done that. So how far does he take it? Any decision is painful: If he loses the Florida recount, does he proceed with legal action demanding another ballot in Palm Beach County, where more than 19,000 votes were discarded because of a confusing ballot? And if he does, what stops the Bush campaign from demanding recounts in closely contested states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico? "If they do that," warns a top Gore adviser, "this will spin out of control." Talk about spin. The election is over, but this campaign is in overdrive. As in: "This election is not over," say the Gore warriors. Stop the "endless challenges," respond the Bush warriors. And so on.


It shouldn't surprise us, really. Remember that during impeachment, the president phoned his friend Dick Morris after the consultant had done some overnight polling on whether the public would accept a president who had perjured himself. Morris told Clinton that the voters "are just not ready for it." Replied Clinton: "Well, we just have to win then." For both sides, it was always about winning–not about preserving the Constitution, or restoring dignity to the Oval Office, or respecting the voters. For Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and their followers, it was a holy war; for the voters, it became a disgusting display of scorched-earth politics.


Which is, of course, exactly what they voted against in this election. So there's a certain irony here: Both Gore and Bush worked during this campaign to distance themselves from the tem- plate of the Clinton years. Gore stayed away from the president like the plague, and Bush used Bill Clinton's character as a campaign mainstay. Only now Gore is poised on the edge of a fight guaranteed to esca- late into a messy, shameless display not unlike impeachment: a partisan battle drawn around a legal process to achieve a political outcome. Been there, done that.


It's hard not to feel for Gore, who has won the popular vote and may well have won the state of Florida, and the election, had all the votes that were cast been counted. And it's also easy to sympathize with Gore when the Bush campaign acts as if none of this is happening. His staff preferred to talk about matters of the presidential transition; they portrayed Bush as "calm." (Did anyone ask?) All this, of course, as Bush's vote count in Florida dwindled to a margin worthy of a school board election in Waco.


So let the votes be counted. Gore's Rubicon comes after the recount. If he loses, does he "stay and fight," as he chanted during the campaign? If he does, will the public be with him? Gore must understand the lesson of impeachment: No political leader can wage a lonely war. Gore will need the support of party leaders, and some Democrats last week warned Gore that a protracted battle would be a national disaster. Louisiana Democrat John Breaux publicly advised what many were saying privately–"count the votes and respect the decision." Otherwise, says a top Democratic strategist, "it's like killing the king. If Gore tries, he had better win–or he destroys himself."


Bill Clinton believed his impeachment fight was a badge of honor, and he was wrong. After the count, Al Gore can turn this election into his badge of honor, and he would be right.

Gloria Borger is also a CBS News special correspondent.

[1776]

Whoa, this tread has been hijacked!!!

I liked the original post. Now how about a discussion regarding it

[Gunthr]

From Time Magazine:

BY JESSICA REAVES

To: Vice President Gore
Re: The Election

"Dear Mr. Gore:

History remembers the strangest things: Ronald Reagan's jellybean fetish, Nixon's penchant for tape recorders, Johnson's inexplicable urge to pick his dogs up by their ears. And although you may not feel like it right now, you're in an enviable position: Over the next week or so you have the opportunity to shape not only the way history will remember you, but the way the future will treat you as well.

Next Friday, when the official recount has come in and all the absentee ballots have returned from overseas, you'll know whether Floridians chose you or your opponent on November 7. And if you've come up short in the tally, you should gracefully step aside and let Bush take up the presidency.

It sounds outrageous, I know, especially when there are so many questions remaining: What about those Buchanan votes? Those discarded ballots? The sheer unfairness of it all? The easy road in a situation like this is paved with temper tantrums and legal maneuvering.

So take the hard road. Be the bigger man. Get out of the way of the Bush steamroller and let Americans see that you are, in fact, a guy who's capable of behaving like a president. We'll remember that in four years, I can promise you that.

The legal challenges your team keeps threatening represent a singularly bad political logic. I know you're not challenging the voters, but in a way, that's what it sounds like. To many it seems that you're not happy with the outcome of the election, and so you're challenging the results. And while you may have grounds for some well-placed anger, you've also got the opportunity to do something truly historic: Walk away.

It will show people that you put the welfare of the nation before your own ambition. It will show that you have an uncommon devotion to the common good. It will show that you can rise above the messiness and unruliness and see what's best for the country, not the Gore family. It will show people that you are that rare thing, a statesman.

It's not impossible. Dick Nixon did it back in 1960, even when he was fairly certain there had been a little hanky-panky back in the ballot boxes of Texas and Illinois. He did grudgingly and reluctantly, but he did it. And then he ran successfully just eight years later. Assuming that Bush survives his first term and performs in an unspectacular fashion, you could conceivably be ensconced in the Oval Office by January 2005.

Spend the interim four years getting to know all of us a bit better, and, more importantly, letting us get to know you. We've heard about your decidedly un-robotic behind-the-scenes persona, and now that the pressure's off, maybe we could witness your purported grooviness firsthand.

Take up golf. (Well, scratch that.) Get some empathy tips from Clinton. Mow the lawn. Help Albert III with his college applications.

It's a gift, really, all this time. You're young, and you're smart. You've got the rest of your political life spreading out before you like a giant, blue-coded electoral map. It'll be tough at first, of course, those initial weeks after the decision. You'll probably feel an inexplicable urge to shake strangers' hands, drink bad coffee, sleep for three hours a night. And you might need to wear ties for a few weeks — you'll feel naked without one. Just take it one day at a time. Coming off a campaign is kind of like detox, hopefully without the tremors.

In the meantime, take Tipper and the kids and Bill Daley on a nice long vacation, far away from Washington. And for heaven's sake stay away from those swing states. The weather in Ohio is horrible this time of year."

[Dowding]

Gunthr - what is your point? You could go on posting the opinions of journalists or 'letters to the editor' of a particular bias all year, while someone else does the same with articles and letters of the contrary view.

That's not a debate, it's an exercise in 'cut and paste'.

[Gunthr]

Just sharing food for thought Dowding... I enjoyed reading these pieces written by various people in the media, and thought others might too.  

Cheers,
Gunthr
.
.
.
.
.




[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-13-2000).]

[wrench]

Heya Dowding, you hijacked the man's thread and then you turn around and attack him. Reads like liberal, sounds like liberal, smells like liberal, must be sour grapes.

He was posting "more voices coming out against gore".  That was the point, however in your zeal to attack him you seemed to miss the very answer you asked for.

When I opened the thread I hoped he had "cut and pasted" some other voices, bravo he did! AND I didn't even agree or like all of them  

Keep em coming gunthr, a liberal will claim he wants equality and open debate, until he loses the power/debate. Then it is time to ATTACK! LOL, at least you guys are predictable.

Wrench - still lurking  

[Dowding]

Wrench - there you go again! Your stock response is to mistake argument and debate for 'personal attack', and then come out with the statement that 'all liberals are the same'. Now that's predictable!

Gunthr - in no way was I trying to offend you or 'attack' you (as Wrench would have you believe). I wasn't even trying to hijack the thread either.

And the articles were interesting.  

[Gunthr]

Well then, Dowding, with your permission  

  From the Wall Street Journal:  


REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Railroad
Gore hopes the White House will be the last stop on the "no controlling legal authority" express.

Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:02 a.m. EST

"Seek and ye shall find," says the Good Book. No one puts more faith in this proposition than the Vice President's lawyers: Given the time, they know, Democratic counters in Democratic counties seeking more votes for the Democratic candidate for President will find them. Indeed, Time.com already reports that when helpful election officials in Pinellas County, which went for Al Gore, "removed the chaff from ballots before they were submitted for recount by the machines, Gore-Lieberman picked up an additional 417 votes."

It is hard not to admit the obvious: The Gore campaign is trying to railroad a victory. Nothing captures the true intentions behind this strategy better than the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board's announcement of its 2-1 decision to proceed with a hand count. They held this press conference at 2 a.m. Sunday, in the middle of the night. Canvassing board member Carol Roberts walked everyone through her math--there could be 1,900 more votes for Mr. Gore out there!--and then voted to go ahead with a full hand count. Ms. Roberts was joined in this 2-1 decision by Theresa LePore, a Democrat, and arguably the 2000 election's single most controversial person: She is the designer of the now infamous Palm Beach butterfly ballot.

Unlike Governor Jeb Bush, who recused himself from the state canvassing board, Ms. LePore refused to do so. Given Ms. LePore's standing among Democrats as the person who cost them the White House, by what reasonable standard was she permitted to serve on this board?

Even more telling is the exchange before the vote, in which the board chairman, Judge Charles Burton, also a Democrat, asked for an advisory opinion from the state. At a time when the Gore camp rests its case on the letter of Florida's election law on recounts, what does it say that the two Democratic members of the board were so determined not to hear the state's reading of that law? Click here to read a transcript of Ms. Roberts's frantic efforts to ram through her desired result.

Then when Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced yesterday morning she intended to adhere to the firm deadline mandated by Florida law, the Gore campaign communications director Mark Fabiani leapt immediately to the ad hominem, labeling her decision to follow Florida law the "naked political act" of a "crony." Campaign spokesman Chris Lehane took it further, likening her to a "Soviet commissar."

There's more. Mr. Gore's lawyers in Palm Beach County rest their legal moral case on what they insist is every citizen's sacred right to vote be honored. Meanwhile in largely Republican Seminole County these same Gore lawyers argue that 4,700 absentee ballot requests be thrown out because GOP officials had (before the election) been allowed to correct a printer's error.

The team of lawyers around Mr. Gore obviously understand the law and its ramifications all too well. In particular they understand that it provides for an Electoral College, sets a deadline for recounts, and does not entertain after-the-fact changes of the rules, whether it be over the counting of ballot "chads" or the tallying of a vote. And so the Gore strategy is staked not on persuading the American public that the Vice President is right, but in casting sufficient public doubt on the system to make the election appear illegitimate, which somehow gives them carte blanche to put every aspect into (legal) play.

There is a certain unavoidable irony in having this spectacle of legal jujitsu created by lawyers for the public official who claimed the defense of no controlling legal authority. It sounded like a strange concept at the time, but it's now clear that Mr. Gore clearly understands its meaning and its uses. Its clear purpose in Florida now is to railroad an outcome.