|
Check the new
WhoseFlorida
for updates
Please Note - National updates for this page have been moved to http://www.whitecloud.com
- - local /statewide news and comments will continue to be posted here
Some
Broward probationers mistakenly told they couldn't vote
The Florida Department of Corrections is investigating an error that
may have disenfranchised a number of eligible voters in four counties
over the past four years.
A handful of probation officers (44) in Broward, Monroe, St. Johns and
Orange counties relied on an unofficial document to instruct offenders
on probation that they've lost certain civil rights, even if the
offenders had their adjudication withheld as part of a plea
agreement.--
That instruction was false. 8/3/02
Judge
lets voting suit proceed
MIAMI -- A federal judge has rejected state attempts to
avoid trial over presidential election problems that kept blacks from
voting in Florida. 8/2/02
Voters'
lawsuit headed to trial
Barring any last-minute settlements, the players in a federal lawsuit
alleging voter discrimination in Florida's controversial 2000 election
-- including Miami-Dade County and Secretary of State Katherine Harris
-- will be heading to trial later this month. 8/2/02
Controversy
over state's 2000 ballots hangs on
They were hauled across the state; counted and
recounted. With leadership of the nation at stake, they were perhaps
the most scrutinized pieces of paper in American history. Now Florida
must decide whether to preserve them or throw them in the garbage
7/28/02
Get
over it? Not this filmmaker
Documentary reviews the 2000 election.
Even with the presumption of inevitability that many news
organizations deservedly were criticized for promoting, the
record-breaking $100 million that it took to buy the White House
almost wasn't enough. "We have a president who owes his election
more to a dynasty than to democracy," said Chairman Julian Bond
at the NAACP's 93rd annual convention this week.- Presidential
candidate George W. Bush had wooed that group before he lost the
November 2000 popular election by more than a half-million votes
nationwide. He would have lost Florida's popular vote -- and the
presidency -- had all the ballots that voters cast been registered.-
For Americans who consider it a patriotic duty to ensure that every
citizen has an equal opportunity to vote and to have his or her vote
counted, restoring confidence in the electoral process means looking
first at Florida. That's what Faye Anderson has done as producer of Counting
on Democracy.... more
Election
echoes still ringing in our weary ears
A confluence of events has left me wondering if we will ever shed this
pall, or whether the ghost of elections past will forever haunt our
fair state.6/28/02
Florida
got bulk of soft money for 2000
More "soft money" was funneled from national political
parties to Florida than to any other state during the 2000 elections,
according to a report released Tuesday by three Washington-based
public policy groups. 6/26/02
U.S.:
Some Fla. vote complaints can't be pursued
WASHINGTON -- Some Florida voting rights complaints resulting from the
bitter 2000 presidential election -- including the infamous butterfly
ballots and allegations of missing ballot boxes -- were either false
or can't be prosecuted, the Justice Department said Friday. 6/8/02
Some clips from 2001:
Economist
Magazine Retracts Bush Victory Call 11/17/012
Why
the media recounts in Florida don't change a thing 11/16/01
News Clips on
the Consortium Election Study 11/14/01
Media consortium election study
completed but not being released 10/12/01
Florida's Hill Democrats still bruised over vote
8/11/01
Bush's
fifth ace: A crooked Panhandle -Plop some green eyeshades on blind
Bob Butterworth
Top
The following exchanges, while sure to interest Note readers and historians, actually won't be part of tonight's
(11/15/02) 20/20 broadcast, so you can read them only here and now:
WALTERS: I'm not sure that people realize that while you were in the residence of the Vice President [during the Florida recount] there were crowds of people outside screaming at you. What was that all about?
AL GORE: Well, this was the Republican response to what was happening during that 36-day period, and they organized busloads of people that came and stood outside the house all day and all night screaming at the top of their lungs.
WALTERS: What, "Get out!"?
TIPPER GORE: Things like that, yes, and, and sometimes … things that we don't want to say on your program, and, some people saw that they were buses from "churches," but it was organized. The one thing that, that they did mainly was reach the bedrooms of our children, and Albert was still in school locally, and trying to study, so we rearranged, you know, they … kids moved to a different part of the house, and I was trying to think of a way that we could kind of laugh about this since obviously it was out of our control, there wasn't anything anybody could do so I got all the boom boxes in the house and … I remember sort of what the government did with Noriega … I thought we'd try that, and I aimed them at, toward, you know, where the crowd …
WALTERS: The crowd?
TIPPER GORE: … And I put nature sounds on and turned it all the way up. And at least the kids laughed.
AL GORE: There were a few, more than a few who supported us and were offended by the organized chanting round the clock who came out on the other street corner during the day to express their support with signs, and … You know, emotions were running high throughout the country and it was just an unprecedented time.
KARENNA GORE: Well, when we were in the Vice President's house during the recount, it was it was very intense. And one of the things I remember is that there was a … an organized effort by, I don't know whether it was the RNC or it was … it was right-wing groups, it was definitely Bush-campaign-oriented effort to bus in people to have a sort of siege at the Vice President's house, and, so, they were all lining there, screaming, and it was kind of an assortment of groups. I mean, some of them were anti, um, were anti-abortion groups, and some of them were pro-gun groups, and some of them … they all had their different signs. But they were all screaming, "Get out of Cheney's house," the whole time. And I just remember being there next to my dad, because I went for a run, and I ran back through them, and I was very upset when I came into the house. And my whole attitude was, like, "We've got to fight back harder. And where are our crowds?" And my dad, I'll never forget his response. He said, "We have to do what's best for the country, and it is not good for the country to have this kind of divisiveness. And he was on the phone, really calling off the dogs. There were people who wanted to fan the … the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest. And he was on the phone asking them not to, because of what was best for the country not because of what was best for him politically. And that's really who he is.
WALTERS: Do you remember the crowds outside screaming?
KRISTEN GORE: The crowds that were screaming outside our house, you know, "Get out of Cheney's house." And other things … of that nature, were really upsetting. It was difficult … It was just very … upsetting that someone would … yell those things at us. It felt … we felt sort of like … trapped in this … you know, little house with all these people yelling mean things. It's no fun. You know, whether you're a child of the person who they're directed at, or anyone else. It … it wasn't a good situation.
WALTERS: Were you scared?
KRISTEN GORE: I was scared that the truth was not going to come out. That's what I was.
... http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/TheNote.html
Top
Here's a marvelous easy-to-read analysis of the Supreme Court decision from a California attorney.
Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got more votes.
Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
A: Right.
Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.
Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
A: Generally yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.
Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.
Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Q: What complexities?
A: They don't say.
Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?
A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.
Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election.
A: Right.
Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"
Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
A: Right. You're catching on.
Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.
A: Right. Next question.
Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.
Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.
Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?
A: Nope.
Q: Why not?
A: No time.
Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because December 12 was yesterday.
Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.
Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.
Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
A: Nothing.
Q: But I thought ---
A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.
Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.
A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."
Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?
A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.
Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.
Q: But, but --
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.
Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount
Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore, of course.
Q: Tell me this Florida's laws are unconstitutional?
A: Yes
Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida
Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because -um- the Supreme Court doesn't say so
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors)
Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state? count under a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.
Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.
Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.
Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.pdf
(December 9 stay stopping the recount) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf
(December 12 opinion)
Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President.
A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to ensure that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
Q: Is there any way to stop this?
A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
Q: What do I do now?
A: Email this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator, reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people.
Mark H. Levine Attorney at Law MarkLevineEsq@aol.com
Top
Bush's Conspiracy to Riot
(Greetings All, Sorry for the intrusion, but the latest from the
formidable Robert Parry begs your attention. Thank God for him and
Helen Thomas. His web site is; www.consortiumnews.com
visit it frequently . . .
The campaign season has begun in earnest. This article will remind
you of exactly what we are up against, especially here in Florida.
As Mr Parry so eloquently points out, no measure or strategy is to
extreme to ensure the triumph of their will.
We must prepare and ready ourselves for the assault that is surely
coming. It is time to start walking the walk. I've got my boots on,
do you???
Regards, ...Galloway
Bush's Conspiracy to Riot
By Robert Parry August 5, 2002
More than three decades apart, two political riots influenced the
outcome of U.S. presidential elections. In 1968, protests at the
Democratic National Convention in Chicago hurt Democrat Hubert
Humphrey and helped Republican Richard Nixon eke out a victory. On
Nov. 22, 2000, the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" of
Republican activists helped stop a vote recount in Miami -- and
showed how far George W. Bush's supporters were ready to go to put
their man in the White House.
But the government reaction to the two events was dramatically
different. The clashes between police and Vietnam War protesters in
1968 led the Nixon administration to charge seven anti-war radicals
with "conspiring to cross state lines with the intent to incite
a riot." The defendants, who became known as the Chicago Seven,
were later acquitted of conspiracy charges, in part, because the
protests were loosely organized and because solid documentary
evidence was lacking.
After the Miami "Brooks Brothers Riot" - named after the
protesters' preppie clothing - no government action was taken beyond
the police rescuing several Democrats who were surrounded and
roughed up by the rioters. While no legal charges were filed against
the Republicans, newly released documents show that at least a half
dozen of the publicly identified rioters were paid by Bush's recount
committee.
The payments to the Republican activists are documented in hundreds
of pages of Bush committee records - released grudgingly to the
Internal Revenue Service last month, 19 months after the 36-day
recount battle ended. Overall, the records provide a road map of how
the Bush recount team brought its operatives across state lines to
stop then-Vice President Al Gore's recount efforts.
The records show that the Bush committee spent a total of $13.8
million to frustrate the recount of Florida's votes and secure the
state's crucial electoral votes for Bush. By contrast, the Gore
recount operation spent $3.2 million, about one quarter of the Bush
total. Bush spent more just on lawyers - $4.4 million - than Gore
did on his entire effort.
Extended Deadline
The new evidence was submitted by the Bush recount committee to the
IRS under an extended deadline for disclosures of soft-money
spending by so-called "527 committees," which are not
directly related to a candidate's campaign. Bush lawyers had argued
that they were not obligated legally to disclose how they had raised
and spent their money.
The Bush committee finally reversed itself and filed the records on
July 15. The records were released to the public on the IRS Web site
in late July. Gore's committee submitted its records in line with
the original IRS deadlines.
The documents show that the Bush organization put on the payroll
about 250 staffers, spent about $1.2 million to fly operatives to
Florida and elsewhere, and paid for hotel bills adding up to about
$1 million. To add flexibility to the travel arrangements, a fleet
of corporate jets was assembled, including planes owned by Enron
Corp., then run by Bush backer Kenneth Lay, and Halliburton Co.,
where Dick Cheney had served as chairman and chief executive
officer.
Only a handful of the Brooks Brothers rioters were publicly
identified, some through photographs published in the Washington
Post. Jake Tapper's book on the recount battle, Down and Dirty,
provides a list of 12 Republican operatives who took part in the
Miami riot. Half of those individuals received payments from the
Bush recount committee, according to the IRS records.
The Miami protesters who were paid by Bush recount committee were:
Matt Schlapp, a Bush staffer who was based in Austin and received
$4,276.09; Thomas Pyle, a staff aide to House Majority Whip Tom
DeLay, $456; Michael Murphy, a DeLay fund-raiser, $935.12; Garry
Malphrus, House majority chief counsel to the House Judiciary
subcommittee on criminal justice, $330; Charles Royal, a legislative
aide to Rep. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. $391.80; and Kevin Smith, a former
GOP House staffer, $373.23.
Three of the Miami protesters are now members of Bush's White House
staff, the Miami Herald reported last month. They include Schlapp,
who is now a special assistant to the president; Malphrus, who is
now deputy director of the president's Domestic Policy Council; and
Joel Kaplan, another special assistant to the president. [See Miami
Herald, July 14, 2002]
The Bush committee records show, too, that Bush's operation paid for
the hotel where the Republican protesters celebrated after the Miami
riot at a Thanksgiving Day party. At the party, the activists
received thank-you phone calls from Bush and Cheney, and were
serenaded by crooner Wayne Newton, singing "Danke Schoen,"
German for thank-you very much. [Wall Street Journal, Nov. 27, 2000;
Consortiumnews.com's
"W's Triumph of the Will"]
The IRS records show that the Bush recount committee paid $35,501.52
to the Hyatt Regency Pier 66 in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the
party was held.
The House of Masquerades
A number of miscellaneous expenses, reported by the Bush recount
committee, also appear to have gone for party items, such as
lighting, sound systems and even costumes. Garrett Sound and
Lighting in Fort Lauderdale was paid $5,902; Beach Sound Inc. in
North Miami was paid $3,500; and the House of Masquerades, a costume
shop in Miami, had three payments totaling $640.92, according to the
Bush records.
The Brooks Brothers Riot - carried live on CNN and other networks -
marked a turning point in the recount battle. At the time, Bush
clung to a lead that had dwindled to several hundred votes and Gore
was pressing for recounts. The riot in Miami and the prospects of
spreading violence were among the arguments later cited by defenders
of the 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Dec. 12, 2000, that
stopped a statewide Florida recount and handed Bush the presidency.
Backed by the $13.8 million war chest, the Bush operation made clear
in Miami and in other protests that it was ready to kick up plenty
of political dust if it didn't get its way.
A later unofficial recount by news organizations found that if all
legally cast ballots in Florida had been counted - regardless of
which kinds of chads were accepted, whether punched-through, hanging
or dimpled - Gore would have won Florida and thus the presidency.
Gore also won the national popular vote, defeating Bush by more than
a half million votes, making Bush the first popular-vote loser in
more than a century to be installed in the White House. [Consortiumnews.com's
"So Bush Did Steal the White House"]
Across State Lines
The evidence also is clear that the Bush campaign organized the
transportation of Republican activists across state lines into
Florida. As early as mid-November, the Bush campaign called on
activists to rush to Florida and promised to pay their expenses.
"We now need to send reinforcements," the Bush campaign
said in an appeal to Republicans on Nov. 18, 2000. "The
campaign will pay airfare and hotel expenses for people willing to
go." [See Tapper's Down and Dirty.]
These reinforcements - many of them Republican staffers from Capitol
Hill - added an angrier tone to the dueling street protests already
underway between supporters of Bush and Gore. The new wave of
Republican activists injected "venom and volatility into an
already edgy situation," wrote Tapper.
"This is the new Republican Party, sir!" Brad Blakeman,
Bush's campaign director of advance travel logistics, bellowed into
a bullhorn to disrupt a CNN correspondent interviewing a Democratic
congressman. "We're not going to take it anymore!"
Around the country, the conservative media apparatus, led by talk
show host Rush Limbaugh and pro-Bush pundits, rallied the faithful
with charges that a hand recount was fraudulent and amounted to
"inventing" votes.
Bush himself did nothing to temper the inflammatory rhetoric. Nor
did he urge his supporters to respect the legally sanctioned vote
counting.
Instead, Bush's recount representative, James Baker, and Bush
himself denounced the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered that
recount results be included in the official vote tallies. Bush
accused the court of abusing its powers in a bid to
"usurp" the authority of the legislature.
The Battle of Miami
On Nov. 22, 2000, after learning that the Miami canvassing board was
starting an examination of 10,750 disputed ballots that had
previously not been counted, Rep. John Sweeney, a New York
Republican, called on Republican troops to "shut it down,"
according to Down and Dirty. Brendan Quinn, executive director of
the New York GOP, told about two dozen Republican operatives to
storm the room on the 19th floor where the canvassing board was
meeting, Tapper reported.
"Emotional and angry, they immediately make their way outside
the larger room in which the tabulating room is contained,"
Tapper wrote. "The mass of 'angry voters' on the 19th floor
swells to maybe 80 people," including many of the Republican
activists from outside Florida.
News cameras captured the chaotic scene outside the canvassing
board's offices. The protesters shouted slogans and banged on the
doors and walls. The unruly protest prevented official observers and
members of the press from reaching the room. Miami-Dade county
spokesman Mayco Villafana was pushed and shoved. Security officials
feared the confrontation was spinning out of control.
The canvassing board suddenly reversed its decision and canceled the
recount. "Until the demonstration stops, nobody can do
anything," said David Leahy, Miami's supervisor of elections,
although the canvassing board members would later insist that they
were not intimidated into stopping the recount. [Down and Dirty]
A Sample Ballot
While the siege of the canvassing board office was underway, county
Democratic chairman Joe Geller stopped at another office seeking a
sample ballot. He wanted to demonstrate his theory that some voters
had intended to vote for Gore but instead marked an adjoining number
that represented no candidate.
As Geller took the ballot marked "sample," one of the
Republican activists began shouting, "This guy's got a
ballot!"
In Down and Dirty, Tapper writes: "The masses swarm around him,
yelling, getting in his face, pushing him, grabbing him. 'Arrest
him!' they cry. 'Arrest him!' With the help of a diminutive DNC
aide, Luis Rosero, and the political director of the Miami Gore
campaign, Joe Fraga, Geller manages to wrench himself into the
elevator.
"Rosero, who stays back to talk to the press, gets kicked,
punched. A woman pushes him into a much larger guy, seemingly trying
to instigate a fight. In the lobby of the building, a group of 50 or
so Republicans are crushed around Geller, surrounding him. .
"The cops escort Geller back to the 19th floor, so the
elections officials can see what's going on, investigate the
charges. Of course, it turns out that all Geller had was a sample
ballot. The crowd is pulling at the cops, pulling at Geller. It's
insanity! Some even get in the face of 73-year-old Rep. Carrie Meek.
Democratic operatives decide to pull out of the area
altogether." [Tapper's Down and Dirty]
Despite the use of intimidation to influence actions by election
officials, Bush and his top aides remained publicly silent about
these disruptive tactics. The Washington Post reported that
"even as the Bush campaign and the Republicans portray
themselves as above the fray," national Republicans actually
had joined in and helped finance the raucous protests. [Washington
Post, Nov. 27, 2000]
The Wall Street Journal added more details, including the fact that
Bush offered personal words of encouragement to the rioters in a
conference call to a Bush campaign-sponsored celebration on the
night of Thanksgiving Day, one day after the canvassing board
assault.
"The night's highlight was a conference call from Mr. Bush and
running mate Dick Cheney, which included joking reference by both
running mates to the incident in Miami, two [Republican] staffers in
attendance say," according to the Journal. [Nov. 27, 2000]
The Journal also reported that the assault on the canvassing board
was led by national Republican operatives "on all expense-paid
trips, courtesy of the Bush campaign." After their success in
Dade, the rioters moved on to Broward, where the protests remained
unruly but failed to stop that count.
The Journal noted that "behind the rowdy rallies in South
Florida this past weekend was a well-organized effort by Republican
operatives to entice supporters to South Florida," with DeLay's
Capitol Hill office taking charge of the recruitment.
About 200 Republican congressional staffers signed on, the Journal
reported. They were put up at hotels, given $30 a day for food and
"an invitation to an exclusive Thanksgiving Day party in Fort
Lauderdale," the article said.
Upper Hand
The Journal said there was no evidence of a similar Democratic
strategy to fly in national party operatives. "This has allowed
the Republicans to quickly gain the upper hand, protest-wise,"
the Journal said.
The Bush campaign also worked to conceal its hand. "Staffers
who joined the effort say there has been an air of mystery to the
operation. 'To tell you the truth, nobody knows who is calling the
shots,' says one aide. Many nights, often very late, a memo is
slipped underneath the hotel-room doors outlining coming
events," the Journal reported.
On Nov. 25, the Bush campaign issued "talking points" to
justify the Miami protest, calling it "fitting, proper"
and blaming the canvassing board for the disruptions. "The
board made a series of bad decisions and the reaction to it was
inevitable and well justified," the Bush campaign said. [Down
and Dirty]
Still, other recounts in Broward County whittled down Bush's lead.
Gore was gaining slowly in Palm Beach's recount, despite constant
challenges from Republican observers.
To boost Bush's margin back up, Republican Secretary of State Harris
allowed Nassau County to throw out its recounted figures that had
helped Gore. Then, excluding a partial recount in Palm Beach and
with Miami shut down, Harris certified Bush the winner by 537 votes.
Bush partisans cheered their victory and began demanding that Bush
be called the president-elect. Soon afterwards, Bush appeared on
national television to announce himself the winner and to call on
Gore to concede defeat.
"Now," Bush said, "we must live up to our principles.
We must show our commitment to the common good, which is bigger than
any person or any party."
Changed Course
To many Gore supporters, the aborted recount in Miami changed the
course of the Florida events, preventing Gore from narrowing Bush's
small lead or possibly edging ahead.
The Brooks Brothers Riot also represented an escalation of tactics,
demonstrating the potential for spiraling political violence if the
recount battle dragged on. The Republicans were putting down a
marker that they were prepared to do what was necessary to win,
regardless of what the voters had wanted.
After the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount to
determine who won the state and thus the presidency, Bush sent his
lawyers to the U.S. Supreme Court where five Republican justices
decided on Dec. 9, 2000, to stop the counting of votes. Then, on
Dec. 12, the same five Republicans blocked a resumption. The
disruptions in November had played out the clock so a slim majority
on the U.S. Supreme Court could effectively award the White House to
Bush.
Unlike the Chicago Seven case three decades earlier, no one faced
charges for disrupting the Miami recount.
In the Chicago Seven case, the jury acquitted all defendants of
conspiracy charges, though finding five defendants - David
Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin -
individually guilty of inciting a riot, charges that later were
reversed on appeal. Separate government investigations also faulted
the Chicago police for using excessive violence to quell the 1968
protests.
Ironically, the kind of documentary evidence that might have proved
valuable in tying up the loose ends of the Chicago Seven conspiracy
is present in the new filings that the Bush recount committee made
to the IRS. The evidence is clear that the Bush committee organized
the movement of protesters across state lines, paid for their
lodging, moved them into a position for the riot, and then defended
their actions.
After the incident, Bush personally thanked some of the participants
at a celebration paid for by Bush's organization. Since taking
office, Bush has further rewarded some of the participants with
high-level government jobs.
But the biggest reason for the very different government reactions
to the Chicago Seven case and the Brooks Brothers Riot is obvious:
the ultimate beneficiary of the Miami riot is now president of the
United States.
(In the 1980s, as a correspondent for The Associated Press and
Newsweek, Robert Parry broke many of the stories now known as the
Iran-contra scandal. His latest book is entitled, Lost History.)
Top
"Counting on Democracy"-
a new film on the Florida 2000 election
June 26th, Wed., 7:00 pm, New York City, Voter March Meeting
Special Guest - Danny Schechter Producer Previewing
"Counting on Democracy"
Voter March (www.votermarch.org)
- New York City will hold a general membership meeting at 160
East 48th Street, (corner 3rd Avenue), The Buchanan, Penthouse
U, Manhattan. The meeting will start with a showing of the
Voter March Cable TV show from the Manhattan Neighborhood
Network on Channel 67 at 7 pm EST and on the internet at www.MNN.org
. Louis Posner, Voter March Founder and Executive
Director, and Stephen Modica, New York Steering Committee, talk
about Voter March history and events, the Greg Palast tour and
Danny Schechter's new film "Counting on Democracy."
At 7:30 pm we will have our special guest, Danny Schechter,
Executive Producer of Globalvision (www.globalvision.org)
who will give us a preview showing of his new documentary film
"Counting on Democracy" about the Florida Presidential
election debacle. Suggested contribution $5.
“The answer is tough investigations of what happened in the
voting and the vote counting, uncompromised by the false notion
that avoidance of controversy will be healing. The answer
is also tough reporting on what happened in Florida that does
not confuse fairness with the unsatisfactory practice of quoting
one strident voice and then its opposite in every story.” Alex
Jones of Harvard University’s Center on the Press, Politics
and Public Policy in the New York Times
A NEW CUTTING-EDGE FILM FROM GLOBALVISION ON THE UNTOLD STORY OF
THE 2000 ELECTORAL FIASCO IN FLORIDA: COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY
Narrated by OSSIE DAVIS AND RUBY DEE
Written and Produced by Faye M. Anderson
Produced and Directed by Danny Schechter
“This tale of race, political payback, voter fraud and justice
deferred could have come out of a Hollywood thriller. But
no—this is the story of the 2000 Presidential election in
Florida, one of the most startling, disturbing events in recent
years. Directed by investigative reporter Danny Schechter ,
Counting on Democracy is a jaw-dropping, even terrifying account
of just how shallow our nation’s commitment to democracy can
be” Taos Film Festival
175,000 votes went uncounted in Florida during the 2000
Presidential Election. Only 537 votes separated the contenders
when the United States Supreme Court gave the presidency to
George W. Bush? What happened to all the votes? What was behind
the fiasco in Florida? Was it a coup, a conspiracy or a
“tyranny of small decisions?” Were black voters
disenfranchised and other minorities discriminated against?
COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY tells the full story the mainstream media
wouldn’t.
This non-partisan hour-long investigative film penetrates the
electoral swamp in Florida with interviews and new information
about how the right to vote was undermined, and the recount
sabotaged. Globalvision speaks with voters, activists, and
partisans on all sides to make sense of the disruption of
democracy and a massive denial of the right to vote. This eye
opening film goes deeper than the networks in upholding the
right to vote. AVAILABLE NOW FOR SCREENINGS NATIONWIDE. Watch it
on public TV. To order preview VHS copies of this
film, please send a $75 contribution to Voter March, Ltd., P. O.
Box 7035, New York, NY 10150 or order from PayPal at www.votermarch.org
Image
..."I believe in human dignity as the source of national
purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and
the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the
human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is,
I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and
as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for
liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed
platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a
faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and
judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount
of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life
deserves".
...posted by rebellious republican, 6/21/02
Top
In a story entitled "An election correction," the
Economist issued the following correction:
"In the issues of December 16th 2000 to November 10th 2001,
we may have given the impression that George Bush had been legally
and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand
that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is
still too close to call. The Economist apologises for any
inconvenience." We call upon EVERY media outlet to do the
same! http://www.economist.com/World/na/
....demdailynews, 11/17
(written in February)
This February commentary from "The American Prospect"
puts the Consortium Analyses in perspective. Please note the passage,
"In principle, the results of the actual recount don't matter
much at all. This is because the real crime was not that Al Gore may
have won Florida had all his votes been accurately tabulated. It's
that the Republican Party and five Supreme Court justices didn't care
what the actual results in Florida were, period!"
In these early days of the Bush Restoration, it's easy to muster up
the kind of sheer animus that so occupied the right when Bill Clinton
eased into office on the strength of a bare plurality back in 1992.
And it's not pleasant. Some days -- when W. nominated the sleazy Ted
Olson as Solicitor General, for instance, or reinstituted the deeply
offensive "gag rule" on foreign reproductive health
providers -- some dark, feverish part of my brain fantasizes about a
left-wing Rupert Murdoch or Richard Mellon Scaife arising from the
ashes to drag W. through the mud. Perhaps a Texas Project to match the
Clinton-era Arkansas Project? I know, I know, we've all had enough of
that. But where's Ted Turner when you really need him?
Now come the partial results of the Miami Herald/USAToday/Knight-Ridder
recount of Florida ballots to spoil my fantasy. If even a lenient
standard -- counting "faintly-dimpled chads" -- had been
used to count "undervotes" in Miami-Dade County, Gore would
only have garnered 49 more votes. Since the Democrats had expected to
pick up several hundred extra votes in Miami-Dade, this news is
supposedly a blow to claims that Al Gore actually did win Florida.
Of course, there are all kinds of responses to this new development.
For instance, that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide
hand recount, not merely a Miami-Dade recount or a recount in the four
counties where the Gore campaign had requested them -- so we don't
really have a final answer yet. Or that counting only "undervotes"
misses the so-called "misaligned" ballots that gave Pat
Buchanan his oddly strong showing in Palm Beach. Or that we haven't
even begun to look at the disenfranchisement of hundreds of black
Floridians erroneously (and suspiciously) struck from the rolls by a
private auditing firm with strong Republican ties. Or that we must
also consider the uncounted "overvotes" -- like the ones
where voters punched for Gore-Lieberman and wrote the Democrats in as
"write-in" candidates -- that showed a clear preference
despite being "spoiled." (If you want the most pro-Gore take
on the recounts, you can check out the duly-footnoted compilation at
Democrats.com, which gives Gore a 1,554-vote lead based on various
media and official recounts and a less-convincing, but still striking,
29,454-vote lead based on media analyses of "overvotes.")
But since you're weary of this whole mess, dear reader, I'll save you
some time: In principle, the results of the actual recount don't
matter much at all. This is because the real crime was not that Al
Gore may have won Florida had all his votes been accurately tabulated.
It's that the Republican Party and five Supreme Court justices didn't
care what the actual results in Florida were, period! That is, it may
well be that under even a generous standard, George W. Bush would
still have won Florida. The point is that the Republicans didn't want
to find out, and were willing to do just about anything to avoid doing
so.
Like what? There's no point in rehashing any of the many thoughtful
critiques of the Supreme Court's disgraceful 5-4 decision in Bush v.
Gore (though this author likes Jeffrey Rosen's critique in The New
Republic and Ronald Dworkin's in The New York Review of Books) or the
Republicans' various efforts to halt, slow, or cast aspersions on
various official and unofficial recounts. But here in the Washington
bureau of The American Prospect, we have a new poster on the wall: a
blow-up of the now-famous AP photograph of the "protestors"
who "spontaneously" stormed the offices of the Miami-Dade
County board of elections. This "protest" -- a truly
disgusting, extrajudicial act of sheer thuggery -- was purely and
simply an effort to intimidate the vote-counting volunteers so as to
thwart the recount. Who were these protestors? They have since been
identified as Republican aides -- legislative assistants, staff
counsels, chiefs of staff -- flown down from Washington to turn
Florida into an outpost of the Congo.
But we can, at least, thank these young fire breathers for relieving
the GOP of one of its self-assumed burdens: Republicans no longer need
consider themselves defenders of "the rule of law." In the
Congo, after all, they might call what happened in Florida
"democracy." But in America, we call it something else.
Nicholas Confessore
 | How Bush Lost Florida But
Won In The Supreme Court And The Media
"Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over a half
million votes. Secondly, Consortium interpretations of the voting
data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida
than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his
favor were declared invalid than similar votes for Bush. Third,
discounting such invalid votes, Consortium interpretations conclude
that Gore still beat Bush statewide in Florida by a thin margin of
under 200 votes. Which brings us back to the Supreme Court
decision." So writes Jerry Politex in BushWatch. http://www.bushwatch.net/gorebush.htm
|
| Media Recount Spin is a
'Spectacular Abdication of Journalistic Integrity'
"Still trying to figure out which recount standard to apply?
Try this one: Al Gore won Florida by approximately 30,000 votes and
there were 30,000 excuses for not counting them... What we come away
with from Florida is a Man running the country who we know wasn't
elected. Every time he pays off one of his backers, every time he
alienates one of our allies, every time he tries to exterminate the
legacy of his predecessor we are reminded and it cannot go away.
With each increment of descent into chaos we find all exits from
Florida blocked. What a spectacular abdication of journalistic
integrity, to admit clearly on the one hand that the people of the
state of Florida chose Al Gore, and at the very same moment to
unilaterally mask that with misleading headlines." So writes
Marc Ash
in Truthout.com http://www.truthout.com/11.13A.recount.htm
|
| No Matter How You Slice It, Gore
Won
"Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and he won under a
loose-counting scenario. He won if you count 'hanging chads' and he
won if you counted a 'dimpled chad.' He won if you counted a dimpled
chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot
— the so-called 'Palm Beach' standard. He even won if you counted
only a fully-punched chad. He won if you counted partially filled
oval on an optical scan and he won if you counted only a
fully-filled optical scan. He won if you fairly counted the absentee
ballots. No matter how you count it, if everyone who legally voted
in Florida had had a chance to see their vote matter, Al Gore would
be sitting in the Oval Office today." So writes Eric Alterman
in MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.com/news/656430.asp
|
|
The 'Conspiracy Theorists' Were
Right about the Media Coverup
Writes Robert Parry: "If the U.S. Supreme Court had given the
state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had
agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the
American voters – both nationally and in Florida – might well
have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated
president... But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of
the news organizations, which apparently wanted to avoid questions
about their patriotism. If they had simply given the American people
the unvarnished facts, the reality that the voters of Florida
favored Al Gore might have bolstered the belief that Bush indeed did
steal the White House. That, in turn, could have undermined his
legitimacy... The national news media also showed little regard for
the fundamental principle of democracy: that leaders derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed, not from legalistic
tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations maneuvers." http://consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
|
| Consortium Study due out Sunday
Beginning in February, the National Opinion Research Center, working
at the behest of a consortium of media companies, labored for months
to tally uncounted votes in the disputed election that eventually
led to George W. Bush's victory in Florida and, ultimately, to his
presidency.
NORC's tabulation of 180,000 ballots that did not register votes
during initial machine counts was complete before Labor Day and was
slated for media release in mid-September. The data were held back
at the behest of sponsors who felt they did not have the resources
to analyze it properly with so many reporters busy covering the
attacks. ...More
|
| Gore,
black votes more likely to be tossed out
No one will ever know who "really" won the razor-close
presidential election one year ago today. And, with the nation at war
and President Bush's popularity at an all-time high, most people have
moved on to other concerns.
|
| Ballot
design caused most spoiled votes, study finds -Poorly designed
ballots were the single biggest cause of discarded votes in last
year's presidential election in Florida, accounting for a far larger
proportion of uncounted ballots than the state's notorious punch-card
voting machines, a new study for The Herald and seven other newspapers
has found.
|
Bush's
fifth ace: A crooked Panhandle -Plop some green eyeshades on blind Bob
Butterworth
... In other words, ballots were destroyed because they were cast for
Gore. The probability that Escambia's vote distribution occurred by
chance is less than 1 in 1056. One chance in ten raised to
the power 56 means that the Escambia results are about as likely as
Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Loch Ness monster running into one
another at a Shriner's convention.... More
(Top)
This was sent to Sierra Club from a reader in DC. This article ran in a "Hill" newspaper.
Rep. Robert Wexler knew something was wrong when his mother-in-law called him from Boca Raton, Fla., sounding upset, early on the morning of Election Day. "'You have to do something about this,'" she told her son-in-law. "It was a horrible ballot."
The three-term Florida Democrat first thought that maybe his mother-in-law had simply been confused. "It can't possibly be that bad, I figured," he said.
But the moment he saw the ballot himself, Wexler saw that she wasn't exaggerating. "I knew this was a major disaster."
Seven months after then-Vice President Al Gore conceded the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, three Florida Democrats still vividly remember the turmoil surrounding last November's election, and are still outraged about how the post-election period played out.
Wexler, Peter Deutsch and Corrine Brown all say they remain convinced Gore won the election. In interviews with The Hill, they recalled the tension of Election Night, the incredible controversy that ensued and the mistakes the Gore camp made.
Ask Wexler if Al Gore should be in the White House today and he responds, "Of course he should. The wrong man is sleeping in the White House." For Wexler, a 40-year-old with graying hair who hails from Boca Raton, the post-election period was the most "horrifying" public experience he has ever had. "It shook and turned upside down everything I believed in," he said. "For the first time in my life, I questioned everything I'd always believed in, in terms of what democracy was, your right to vote and to have your vote counted. The fact that we were talking about these things was an unfathomable idea."
What Wexler was referring to was an election that introduced words like butterfly ballots, overvotes and chads into the political lexicon. "But for the design of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, Al Gore would be sleeping in the White House, that's for sure," said Wexler. The butterfly ballot was what stumped many of his constituents. Excited about voting for a Jewish candidate for vice president, they meant to punch their card for the Gore-Lieberman ticket but wound up casting a vote for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan. Proud of never missing an election and mindful that 2000 may have been one of their last chances to vote, many senior citizens didn't get to have their ballots count.
"This was an incredibly emotional experience for many of my constituents," said Wexler, who nearly shouts as he speaks. "To be foiled by a puzzle that should have been just a ballot was especially outrageous."
Adding to his frustration was that he had known Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore for years and considered her a friend. To her credit, she responded to criticism that the printing on the 1996 ballot was too small, said Wexler. But the butterfly ballot she approved brought its own problems.
By the time LePore's office warned voters about the confusing ballot at 3 p.m. on Election Day, it was too late, said Wexler.
Still, when his aides started panicking about the ballots later that day, Wexler told them not to worry.
"I remember saying, 'Relax. Think about this now. For any of this to be relevant, Florida has to be the deciding state. OK, that wasn't that big of a longshot. And the margin in Florida has to be less than 30,000. Six million people are casting their ballots in Florida today. Think about this. It's a one in a billion shot. Relax. This is a terrible thing that's happening but no way is it going to be relevant.'"
Wexler felt even more confident when the TV networks called Florida for Gore shortly before 8 p.m. But, as the evening wore on, he said, "it obviously became quite relevant."
"As much as people say that they were prepared for a recount vote, they were not," said Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.). In the first few days, he said, "No one really knew what was going on."
Deutsch spent Election Night in Nashville, Tenn., where the Gore campaign was headquartered. After the networks called the election for Bush shortly before 2:30 a.m., he assumed the race was over. But then Bush's margin of victory began to shrink.
The next morning, Deutsch flew to Baltimore-Washington Airport. But realizing that he should be in Florida instead, he took the next flight there. Deutsch returned to Washington a few days later for a long-planned getaway with his family to New Jersey. It didn't last long. On Saturday, he got a call saying that the recount process would begin Monday morning in Broward County. Democrats wanted his help. He left for Washington Saturday night and flew to Florida Sunday morning.
For the next few weeks, "I lived the Broward County recount," said Deutsch, who, like Wexler, believes that if an accurate standard had been used in his district, Al Gore would be president. He also defends the process against GOP criticism that it was a "sham."
He said manual recounts were necessary because they were more accurate. "People figured out that computers really can't read partially detached chads," said Deutsch. "The only way to ascertain the intention of the voter was actually by looking at it.
"People didn't have these theoretical, theological debates when they looked at the ballots," some of which had what came to known as dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads. Instead, there was a debate over what standard to use, with different counties using different standards.
Deutsch believes the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in December will come to be viewed as negatively as the 1857 Dred Scott decision.
"It does not stand up to the test of intellectual honesty," he said. "They had decided how they were going to vote, and they were looking for a rationale, but the rationale for their decision does not work. No matter whether Florida had a standard or if Florida didn't have a standard, it was going to be found unconstitutional."
Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) has equally strong words about Election 2000, which she calls an "American coup d'etat."
She talked about overvotes; thousands of mostly Democratic ballots that were never counted; and confusing instructions on ballots. She also spoke about voters, often African-Americans, who had registered and showed up at the polls only to be told that for one reason or another they were ineligible to vote.
"I know who won and I know who lost and the American people lost in this election," said Brown.
The media were right on Election Night when they first predicted Gore's victory in Florida, she said. "They were reporting what people were telling them. They did not know the system had collapsed. There is no question in my mind that Al Gore won not only the country but in Florida."
And she said it's up to Congress to make sure that future elections don't end up in the Supreme Court "selecting" a president.
"Whatever else we're doing is secondary. This is the most important thing because the people in this country got shafted in this election."
At the minimum, Congress should pass a voters' bill of rights, partner with state and local governments to update equipment, and address issues like voter education and provisional ballots, she said.
"We have lost our credibility around the world and certainly in Florida - people feel it. If you talk to people in Florida, they expect us to do something. We haven't done a thing up here."
In addition to various kinds of chads, butterfly ballots and votes that went uncounted or were discarded, there were the overseas ballots that Democrats believe would have secured Gore's victory.
Deutsch said he wasn't surprised about the recent New York Times report showing that Republicans pressed to have their overseas ballots counted and to have Democratic ballots discarded. "Those of us who were there knew what was going on," he said.
"What the Times story made clear is they accepted a large number of ballots that literally were illegal under any standard," such as ballots postmarked from the United States, postmarked after the election or two ballots from the same person. "There's no rational basis to accept these."
But Deutsch was surprised to learn was that one of his colleagues, Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), who chaired the Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, had asked the Pentagon for phone numbers and e-mails of servicemen and -women abroad. Deustch filed an ethics complaint against Buyer - which the ethics committee dismissed last week.
Democrats deny GOP charges that Gore-Lieberman didn't want military votes counted, and asked why exceptions should have been made for military personnel overseas who didn't follow proper voting procedures.
"Why is the vote of a serviceman or -woman now more important than a paratrooper who landed in Normandy 50 years ago?" said Wexler.
The three Democrats also believe that Gore should have demanded a statewide recount, not just a manual recount in four counties.
And they still believe Bush has not adequately addressed the "extraordinary circumstances" by which he became president.
"It is absolutely clear that it wasn't 500 or it wasn't 5,000. It was probably closer to 50,000 more people thought they were voting for Al Gore for president of the United States on Election Day in Florida than votes were counted," said Deutsch.
Still, he concedes that, "If God wanted Al Gore to win, he would have won." Wexler still hears from people outside of Florida about the butterfly ballot and how their relatives who meant to vote for Gore made a mistake that has left them confused and angry.
Asked whether Gore should try again in 2004, Wexler, Deutsch and Brown agree the decision is one only Gore can make. But Wexler said he would "highly encourage" Gore to run.
"Any candidate who wins the popular vote for president certainly has the moral right to say, 'Yeah, I'm a legitimate candidate to run again'," he said.
...By Mary Lynn F. Jones
- .... LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG, 8/11/01 IVB
(Top)
By SAM HOWE VERHOVEK
PORTLAND, Ore., Aug. 5; "We've got to raise our expectation
level, folks!" Ralph Nader shouted to a thunderous ovation here on
Saturday night at what he billed as the first major rally to kick off a
new "grass-roots movement" that he calls Democracy Rising.
"We've got to raise our expectations!
"Our elections are not for sale!" said Mr. Nader, applause
from the crowd of 7,500 people nearly drowning him out. "Our
democracy is not for sale! Our government is not for sale! Our children
are not for sale! Our environment, not for sale!"
Plenty of people may still be furious with Mr. Nader, believing that his
Green Party presidential candidacy did little more than tip the 2000
election to George W. Bush. At least two dozen of them showed up outside
Portland's professional basketball arena, the Rose Garden, to protest
Mr. Nader's speech.
They carried satirical placards, all depicting Mr. Nader, the
67-year-old consumer advocate, as a pawn and a dupe: "Right-wing
freaks coalition for Nader." "Back-alley abortionists for
Nader." "Defense contractors for Nader." "Citizens
against tundra." "Unelectable at any speed." They handed
out leaflets pleading with people going inside to persuade Mr. Nader not
to run for president again, but instead to use his influence to move the
Democratic Party to the left.
But in the 20,000-seat arena, which was curtained off, giving the
illusion of being packed, it was hard to find anyone with a negative
word for Mr. Nader or his candidacy. Nearly all in attendance had paid
$10 to hear him speak, and others contributed even more in the "democracyrising.org"
cardboard boxes that were passed among the crowd.
Though Mr. Nader made virtually no mention of presidential campaigns
past or future in his 57-minute speech and declared that the rally was
"not a political or Green Party event," he remained
unrepentant at a news conference just before about any corollary effects
of his candidacy last year. He reiterated that his sole regret was that
he had not received more votes. (He got about 3 percent nationwide,
ranging from 10 percent in Alaska down to zero in the five states where
he was kept off the ballot.)
Mr. Nader brushed aside a question about all those self-identified
progressives who believe his campaign helped nudge Mr. Bush into the
White House. These included protesters outside the arena like Marty
Smith, 34, a Web site developer who said progressives should strive to
be "that `nutso,' must-placate faction of the Democratic Party in
the same way the religious right is something the Republicans have to
deal with," and those who took note of the Nader trip to Portland
with a letter to the editor in The Oregonian, the state's biggest
newspapers, urging him to "be an organizer and evangelizer, not a
candidate."
Mr. Nader snapped: "They're getting over it; I mean, it takes a few
months. I was under the impression that Al Gore won the election. I
thought that's what they believe." He depicted his candidacy as
having ultimately helped tip the Senate to Democratic control because,
he said, Green Party voters were clearly a factor in the razor-thin
victory of Maria Cantwell, the Democratic candidate in Washington state.
In any event, he added: "All this talk really comes down to one
issue. They don't think the Democrats should be challenged by any party
of the progressive wing. They haven't been challenged since 1948, with
the Henry Wallace progressive party. They've gotten used to not being
challenged. They've gotten used to telling progressives they have no
place to go."
For a man who disdains professional politicians, Mr. Nader has gotten
one trick of the trade down pat, the standard assertion that he is
"not even thinking" about whether to run next time.
"I don't believe in long campaigns," he said, "it's far
too early."
And in his depiction, he never really wanted to run in the first place
but saw no other choice. "I'm a civic advocate; I have been for 40
years," he said. "When the doors are closed on citizen groups
in Washington, you've got to go into the political arena, but that's
just a means to a broader strengthening of the citizenry. I read my
Jefferson early."
Mr. Nader said he was hoping that the Portland rally would be the first
of several in big cities that were ultimately designed to spark a
"million-hundred-hundred" movement of the citizenry: one
million people devoting at least 100 hours a year and $100 to a variety
of causes like economic and environmental justice, universal health
care, campaign finance revisions, union organizing, solar energy and
better public transportation.
He received prolonged applause during an attack on genetic engineering.
"The new slavery," he said, "is the ownership and control
of the genetic inheritance of the world; the flora, the fauna and the
human genes."
The "Nader Rocks the Rose Garden" Portland rally included
speeches and singing by a variety of Green Party figures and
professional entertainers like Danny Glover, Jello Biafra and Eddie
Vedder of Pearl Jam. Mr. Nader declared it all a big success.
"You just have to ask yourself, is anyone else doing this, is
anybody else bringing out thousands of people?" he said.
"That's really the comparative measure. There's a lot of empty
arenas in this country, built by taxpayer money, I might add, and they
need to be filled."
My children are teens and we are trying to teach them to be responsible citizens, so our family followed the 2000 election fairly closely. I was quite surprised by many factors in this past election, but the one thing we all could not understand was why the media gave Bush such a light ride. We encouraged our boys to look at the issues, to discover what each candidate was offering. We found Bush never said anything of substance, there was a lot of generalities, but never anything concrete. However, the press never bothered to get beneath the surface, never bothered to question him about the issues. Everyone seemed to accept the generalities and the compassionate conservatism he was dishing out as being a good substitute for specifics.
We were constantly surprised at the double standard the media applied during
the campaign. There were so many lies and half-truths being spouted by Bush or Hughes or one of the other members of his propaganda machine and none of them even questioned. Then Gore makes a few mistakes and the world suddenly is being told he is a chronic liar! All of the "lies" were proven to be non-existent, but the apologies and retractions never made the front page. The people in America were left with the impression that he was a liar. Just as most people today blame Janet Reno for what happened at Ruby Ridge. Hah! Check the dates - it happened before Clinton was even sworn in. The media is falling down on it's responsibility to report the news, instead they pass along whatever line their corporate managers decide is what we, the people, need to hear.
We watched with excitement on election night. We had followed the
Zogby polls for weeks and felt that his polling data was going to be the most accurate. As it turns out - he was right on! Then the disappointment. It was too close to call and the state that was holding things up was Florida. Florida just happens to be the state where Jeb Bush is the Governor. This caused us to do a big
hmmmmm. What a coincidence - the state where one candidate's brother is Governor is too close to call. Not only that, but, this candidate's close cousin was the election manager of Fox News and Fox News had declared Bush the winner even though an automatic recall was scheduled for Florida.
Then the madness started. We were spellbound for weeks, unable to believe
our eyes or ears. Bush was actually challenging hand recounts? What planet was he from! Hand recounting has been the way close elections have always been settled.
DOH! It just got worse and worse. I read the court briefs submitted by both sides. I felt strongly that there was no way the Supreme Court could possibly rule in favor of Bush. It would go against everything the 14th Amendment stood for not to mention setting a very dangerous precedent. Imagine the total chaos in future elections if hand recounting was against the law?
Then came that horrendous decision. Our Supreme Court, our court of highest
arbitration awarded the election to Bush! We were devastated. We have always held the Supreme Court as being above politics, as being ultimately fair. With the stroke of a pen they had wiped out all sense of fairness and non-partisanship. The truth sank in. Democracy had lost a major battle. No longer could America hold its head up high to help the struggling democracies around the world. America lost that day, democracy lost. December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day, was going to be replaced by December 12th as America's Day of Infamy.
I sank into a deep depression. I struggled to make meals, to do the basic
things around the house. We didn't even go Christmas shopping, didn't celebrate Christmas at all. The TV remained off, none of us could stand to watch the news commentators gloat over their success. They felt so good having convinced the American people Bush really was a moderate. We got tired of hearing "get over it". How does one get over a rape or a death? Certainly the psychologists & psychiatrists should be investigating this phenomena. How often have they had a chance to witness mass depression? What about Post Traumatic Stress? I don't think being told "get over it" is the appropriate response to a life-altering event!
There was a protest on Inauguration day in our small town. Our family went
and participated. It was the largest protest in this town since the Viet Nam War. I thought - "Wow, we're not alone!" Then I glanced at some of the major on-line newspapers, but there was very little coverage of the protests from other towns or cities. I couldn't help but wonder why this was being covered up by the media. Why can't the media just report the news? How can the governed make any decisions if they don't get the real news? I started reading the British & Canadian news reports - at least I knew what was really going on in America. The felon voter purge in Florida was reported in the British news months before the American newspapers decided it was newsworthy.
My heart cries for America - for what we have lost. How much of our patriotism
is tied up in being able to stand tall? Being able to be the champions of justice? Knowing what we believe in and saying so? Patriotism is one of those intangible things we, the people, have. I don't like it being damaged goods. I don't like America being hated around the world. We had made so much progress but it seems to be slipping away faster and faster every day. The world needs us to be strong and fair. We need to lead the way on numerous issues like global warming and promoting democracy.
Finally, in May, I started to come out of my depression. I've begun to participate
in life again. I've vowed to fight for democracy.
I will never "Get over IT!"
...Linda Kekumu Pahoa HI (from buzzflash)
(Top)
(Please read Linda Kekumu
above and then read the responses below)
Buzz:
Oh my God, that letter was beautiful. And articulate, and filled with
all the emotions I've had since Nov. 7, 2000. It really has been like
getting over a rape or a death.
I ran for Congress in Florida in this last election and was intimately
involved with the recount struggles. I lost my race. But that doesn't
bother me - even though an unknown percentage of ballots in Palm Beach
County did not have my race on it!!! - No, losing to an incumbent was
perfectly reasonable. But I feel like I didn't just lose my race, I lost
my belief system - and I'm still empty.
With every smug face and exaggerated lie on Fox News to every glossed
over headline touting the "line" but missing the truth, to
being saddled with a second Bush who's, trust me, just as bad and a
little smarter, I wonder what happened to the American people? When did
they become able to be so bamboozled? What happened to the objective
press? It seems we only have objectivity of the business point of view.
Sure, if all you care about is your money and the freedom to conduct
business without constraint, then the Bushes are your guys. I just
wonder what happened to the priorities of Kennedy's time. How could they
disappear so completely, and I wonder when (if ever) the pendulum will
swing back to our version of sanity. And will it be too, unalterably,
late?
Thanks for "listening" - Jean
Dear Linda and Buzz:
Thanks for a great, exceptionally well written article. I, too, really
struggled with the questions: How could it happen? Any one could have
seen through this guy. How could Americans be so stupid? And, I too,
came to the conclusion that it had to be the press. Spending twice as
much doesn't really explain it. Of an older generation, I think that
those who wear the mantle, e.g., the David Broders et al, have to be
held responsible. There is no way, from their lofty perch, that they
could not have seen what an embarrassment this guy would be. Why didn't
they say more? Were they phonies all a long? What's going on? It wasn't
just omission, there had to be something else. I want to know what. Are
they really this dumb?
I have found some solace in the latest polls showing that the people are
beginning to see Bush for what he really is, I hope that youtoo find
something there.
Thanks again and all the very Best!
Ken Melvin
Dear Buzz:
I am from Florida, and I totally have not gotten over it. I sympathize
with Ms. Kekumu, and hope she puts her energies into building to defeat
Bush in 4 years. We are working hard here to "beautify Florida --
uproot the little bush in 2002, and beautify America, uproot the big
bush in 2004". It's the only way to "get over it."
Jill
Buzz:
I wanted to thank Linda Kekumu for her contribution. The best way to
"get over it" is to join your local Democratic club and start
working for change. I live in Florida, just north of West Palm
Beach and our local Demo club is already organizing to beat the
little shrub for governor in 2002 and the big bush in 2004! There
is already speculation that if jeb loses in 2002, his brother is
toast in 2004. I couldn't agree more!
Steven A. Harris Jupiter, FL
Buzz:
Everytime I start to calm down about the selection of Bush, some fool
says "get over it". If we "get over it" it will
happen again. We need to fight to keep whatever freedom we have
left and to have free and fair elections. If he had won the
election, I would then have to "get over it". He did not
win!!!!
Carolyn/Redwood City California
BuzzFlash:
Please relay my admiration and gratitude to the author of this letter.
It speaks so eloquently to exactly the same reaction, I, and probably
millions of Americans, have felt about the Supreme Court travesty. As
long as there are some - hopefully, many - out there who share these
feelings, there's hope. Please keep up the good work. Thanks to all of
you at Buzzflash.
Robert
Buzz:
Everytime I hear the statement "Bush won get over it", I think
NO Bush was appointed and I will NEVER get over it!!! The American
people LOST the day Bush was appointed, DEMOCRACY as we know it LOST the
day Bush was appointed. Everything our country fought for LOST the day
Bush was appointed. Our values, morals and ethics LOST the day Bush was
appointed. All the things I learned as a child about America and the
American way LOST the day Bush was appointed. I am now watching Bush and
company dismantle our country morally, ethically, physically, and
financially. We have a spoiled, self-centered, egotist residing in the
White House who knows nothing about compassion or people. He like Reagan
before him can't even take care of his own family. Why would anyone even
think he's capable of taking care of America and American families? He
is not a uniter, he is a destroyer. I often wonder what the forefathers
of our country would think and do about the "election" of
2000! Why did George Washington cross the Potomac, why did Abe Lincoln
emancipate the slaves, why did America go to war in World War II? To
defend Democracy, thats why! When I think of these things I also think
NO I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT!!!
Barbara (Atlanta)
Linda,
BEAUTIFUL LETTER!! You are NOT alone, Linda--together we can bring back
the America we believe in and love!
Diane
Buzz:
Re: MY STRUGGLE WITH GETTING OVER IT, by the Hawaii reader-- The letter
from a reader which you recently printed -- Well, she summed up exactly
how it was and still is in my family in Florida. Thank you for putting
it on your site and for all your hard work to restore democracy to all
of us.
Laura
BUZZFLASH,
THAT WAS A GREAT LETTER AND EXPRESSED MY FEELINGS EXACTLY. I KNOW HOW I
FEEL, BUT HAVE TROUBLE EXPRESSING IT SOMETIMES.
PLEASE LET LINDA KNOW HOW MUCH I ENJOYED HER LETTER. I THINK SHE SHOULD
EMAIL TO EVERY TV AND RADIO 'TALKING HEAD!" THEY WILL PROBABLY
NEVER DISCUSS IT, BUT AT LEAST THEY WILL KNOW WE WONT GET OVER IT!
SINCERELY, JANET WINTER
Buzz:
You must make her article a permanent on your web page as it expresses
very eloquently what all of us believe. Are you able to do that?
If not, we've got to find a way to stop "voter reform"
from becoming "computerized", as Dell Computers is now
having a hand in "voter machine reform" in Texas (and in
other places?). (Remember Michael Dell was a Big $$$$ supporter to Dubya
for years here in Texas). "Count the Votes" will no longer be
possible with computers, as they will be the final
"authority" of the number of votes. This is the BIGGEST
fight we much wage for the future of democracy...a clean way to
recount the votes. '
Betsy Dallas Texas
Buzz:
Thanks for sending us all the email from Linda Kekumu of Hawaii - she
spoke eloquently about the pain and loss in the aftermath of the stolen
presidential election of 2000. I deeply appreciated knowing that there
are others out there who feel as I do. Good work, keep it up.
Reba
Dear Buzzflash,
Every time I read something like the letter from your reader in Hawaii
who can not just “get over it” I take a big sigh and say, “I’m
not alone after all.” Because I have been made to feel alone in my
outrage by the mainstream media, not only during this post Supreme Court
decision period, but during the election itself.
First I watched the republican convention and said, slick, but what a
lot of hot air. And the media said, stirring performance. Then I watched
the democratic convention a |
