Re: “The ‘very poor’ will count when it comes time to vote” (Michael Gerson column, 2-2).
It is galling to think that Gerson, a professional political writer, thinks he can get away with using part of a statement by Romney to justify his article’s premise: that Romney appears to be a rich person who doesn’t care for the very poor.
Taking a comment out of context is unfortunately commonplace, but to truncate it is unforgivable. The full statement by Romney was, “I am not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it.” That is quite different from Gerson’s assertion, which appears to be, at worst, the result of deceit, and at the very least, laziness. Shame on him.
Michael – you have also edited Romney’s actual quote to your advantage.
Shame on you.
Michael, were you of the opinion that journalists and columnists are unbiased and never allow their own liberal views to infiltrate the stories they write? In Gerson’s case he was writing a commentary which was sometimes heavy on opinion and light on facts.
Thanks for pointing out Gerson’s attempt at joining the Obama campaign theme of downgrading success and successful people in favor of attributing blame on others.
Get ready for more attacks on Romney: when our president cannot run on his own accomplishments, his only hope at reelection is to portray his opponent as someone worse then himself.
It’s divisive and the Obama way.
Romney said what he said. Even in full context it sounds like he really does not care about the very poor. They have a safety net. If the safety net has holes, he’ll fix them. But, he seems completely unconcerned about helping the very poor out of the safety net. They can stay there for all he cares.
He says he’s concerned about the middle-class. Why? Mainly because that’s where to most votes are, and he’s gonna need those votes.
That’s what it all comes down to isn’t it. Getting those votes. Then after that, after he gets those votes, who is he going to care about?
Guess!
A large percentage of the “poor” will stay there as they are on limited income as am I and have had to tighten my belt as far as it can go. The price of food has almost doubled in the last year, gas tripled,levie’s keep pounding the property owner for more money, etc, etc., Hopefully you get the idea. As far as I am concerned not one of our elected officials give a damn about anyone but themselves but I will vote Republican till the day I die. (Sorry Muckibr that I sounded like I was picking on you when it comes to obama and didn’t mean it to sound that way but he scares the “stuff” out of me and I am so surprised that you support him). Vote ALL of the career politicians out and start anew, only then we stand a chance.
Darlin, if the Republicans had better candidates than they currently do, I would seriously consider voting for a Republican presidential candidate. But comparing what they now have versus Obama, I’m not ready to vote for any of them. So, Obama gets my vote.
I always hoped that someday we would get another presidential candidate like RFK, but that hasn’t happened yet. I still live in hope. I really think Bobby felt deeply in his heart for the poor and disenfranchised, and would have really done something to help them and us too. We need another RFK.
As far as the rest of them go, I am ready to vote against every incumbent politician no matter what party they are in. I think that’s probably the best way to send them the message that they work for us, the voters.
A lot of poor people do not vote due to a variety of reasons. Criminal activity, lack of interest, etc.
ccingthr, you might add: lack of a permanent address, age, disability, and now, in some states a new drive to require specific picture ID, a joke in Washington where so many vote by mail and nobody knows who ACTUALLY fills out the ballot, only who signs it.
For the love of god…
You can’t take a cr@p in this country without showing ID.
Give it up on requiring actual citizens to prove who they are before they vote.
Why not just require all voters to provide a thumbprint.
OvercompensatingSwingingDick –
Gerson served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006, and was a member of the White House Iraq Group.
You suffer from the same delusions that 3rdpig does – that anyone who criticizes a GOP candidate is in support of Obama. If you actually READ Gerson’s columns you would see that Gerson is a staunch Republican who wants to get rid of Obama but – like many Republicans – doesn’t like Romney because he thinks that Mitt is too much like Obama.
A lot of poor people do not vote due to a variety of reasons. Criminal activity, lack of interest, etc.
Speculation based in class bias.
beerBoy,
Exactly correct about Gerson. Before he joined the Bush administration, Gerson was a senior policy advisor with The Heritage Foundation, an aide to Senator Dan Coats (R-Indiana), and a speechwriter for the Presidential campaign of Bob Dole. He was also a ghostwriter for Charles Colson of Watergate fame.
The claim that Gerson allows his “liberal views” to infiltrate the stories he writes is a great example of the ideology of the zealot, who sees the world in black and white, and sees that everyone who isn’t with them must be against them. In the 60′s we saw the leftist zealots claim that “you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. Now we have wrong-wing zealots saying things like “you either stand with us or stand with the terrorists”. They both see the world in black and white absolutes, with no possibility of middle ground or neutrality.
This same view explains their continual attacks on the press. By remaining neutral, the press is doing it’s job. But by NOT siding with the wrong-wing zealots, it becomes the enemy. And the enemy must be attacked with both barrels, regardless of whether the attack is truthful or earned. In the case of this attack on Gerson, it’s neither.
I support mandatory ID for voting.
That being said, the government must provide the ID for free to qualifying residents, otherwise the cost of the ID is a poll tax.
“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about about the very poor – we have a safety net there, if it needs repair I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine.
I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-05 percent of Americans that right now are struggling.”
Now THERE is Romney’s quote in context. Not only does Romney say that the poor (whom he excludes) are not struggling, he doesn’t even realize that 16% of Americans live below the poverty level.
If he cared so much, he’d know what’s going on.
We live in a country where a man convicted of a crime can’t vote, but if he has enough money, he can influence the election.
The problem is “ID”? I think not.
I always hoped that someday we would get another presidential candidate like RFK, but that hasn’t happened yet” mukibr
You mean a wealthy candidate from a wealthy family with an uncommon religion who is a member of the 1%? That sounds like Romney! Just for the record, which Republican would you be willing to support since you are so critical of those who are running?
Michael Gerson is apparently one of those “Anyone but Romney” Republicans, given how he trashed Mitt in his column.
One thing I will say for Mitt Romney is that: Mitt is more Honest accidentally, than Newt Gingrich is on purpose.
When Mitt let’s things slip-out like; not caring about the very poor, or how he likes to fire people, you have to at least appreciate the basic Freudian honesty of those remarks, even if it’s only accidental.
That’s the biggest difference between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich is apparently NOT capable of telling the truth. Newt couldn’t tell the truth even if he was being water-boarded by Dick Cheney!
Everything Newt says is calculated and scripted, but he needs a new script writer.
Just before the Florida primary Newt ripped-off the words of Honest Abe and the original founding fathers. He started a speech by quoting Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address when he spoke of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Then he ripped off the founders by saying that he, Newt Gingrich, “In the greatest tradition of our founding document, I will pledge you, my life, my fortune and my sacred honor, if you help me on Tuesday,”
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and so many other greats of American history must have been spinning in their graves when Newt was speaking those words.
First off, when it comes to government Newt doesn’t care about “the people.” That’s been obvious from his history. Newt Gingrich is in government for what he can get out of it for himself.
As to the words of the founders:
Does anyone really believe Newt would give his “life” for a political campaign? Newt Gingrich sought deferments from the draft so he would not even have to risk his life serving his country in the military. This from a guy who was the adopted son of a career Army officer, from whom he got his last name! (Newt was born a McPherson, not a Gingrich.) Some have even suggested the main reason Newt married his first wife, a school teacher much older than him, was to get yet another deferment from the draft for being married.
Will Newt actually give his “fortune” for for this noble cause? Doubt it! The only reason Newt has a fortune is because he’s been able to create it from his contacts and schemes as a successful albeit sleazy politician, lobbyist and “historian.” Newt ain’t giving-up a penny of his money in this or any other cause. In fact, he’s probably actually turning at least a small profit in this campaign to add to his “fortune.”
But finally, his “sacred honor!” What sacred honor? The honor of a serial philanderer! The honor of a disgraced fired Speaker of the House who was kicked out of office, and fined three hundred thousand dollars for unethical activities while he was the Speaker. The man has no “honor” to give.
Newt is a complete and total fraud. It’s amazing that so many people can’t see that and are still supporting and voting for him.
So, when it comes to Mitt Romney honestly admitting, even if accidentally, that he really is “not concerned about the very poor” that comment almost makes Mitt sound virtuous by comparison to Newt Gingrich. Maybe Mike Gerson should have considered that before trashing Mitt Romney.
http://www.rightspeak.net/2012/02/my-life-my-fortune-and-my-sacred-honor.html
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Florida-primary-Gingrich-pledge/2012/02/01/id/426254
The stamp for the mail in ballot is a poll tax.
tree_guy, “which Republican would you be willing to support since you are so critical of those who are running?”
Since you ask so politely, I have mentioned this man before on other topics, and he is a Republican, and he is running right now for President. He is a former congressman and governor of Louisiana, and his name is Buddy Roemer (R).
http://www.buddyroemer.com/
P.S. RFK may have been born to a rich family, but he never acted like it. He was an enlisted man in the Navy during WWII when his dad could have easily bought him a commission. Bobby always followed his own path, and people could easily see that in him. Mitt Romney is nothing at all like RFK. Not even close.
requiring people to provide a blue ink pen to fill in their mail in ballot is also a poll tax. If you can’t afford the pen, you aren’t allowed to vote.
I don’t see a requirement for a blue pen. I used black. There is also “Automark” made available by the government.
Some people should avoid commenting to avoid looking silly.
About 25% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic – the religion that preceded Protestantism.
“Uncommon”???????????????
One may drop their ballot in a ballot box. No stamp required. They may have a friend do it for them. No cost.
Muck: Thank you for answering me so honestly and direct. I agree with you about JFK and Bobby and know that their death was a government plot as they would have kept government in line with what it was intended to be. If both were still alive today it would indead be a better world. It’s too bad there isn’t anyone like them in politics now. Only then can this country get back on track. Ted on the other hand was a total sleaze bag and used his “name” to keep from being imprisoned when he should have been hung. My heart goes out to the Kennedy’s for all of the tragidy they had in that family.
Some people should avoid commenting to avoid looking silly.
Some people should take their own advice……
Thank you for noticing Darlin!
InoyarbutwutmI?
“Ted on the other hand was a total sleaze bag and used his “name” to keep from being imprisoned when he should have been hung.”
Ignorance is bliss, huh?
The Kopeckne family knows more than Darlin.
Darlin,
A person on a fixed income voting Republican is like a chicken asking to work for KFC.
T_G,
The difference between the Kennedys and Romney is that the Kennedys did what was best for all citizens not just what’s good for the super rich.
Governor Romney was close to the Kennedys but Candidate Romney is their polar opponent.
It is fairly simple. Former Gov. Romney’s quote, “I am not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it” has the qualifier, but, in the conclusion.
My conclusion and anyone else who can think should understand the “but” to mean that he does not acknowledge in advance that the safety net has holes in it which is equivalent to not caring.
Romney was born with silver ear plugs and silver blinders already installed.
And all the left here are a product of the 60-70s hippie movement.
Who pays the taxes to support fixed incomes? The poor? No
So Mitt is very rich. Kerry was poor. JFK was not poor. BHO went to great schools he did not pay for. Grew up in paradise. Traveled the world.
Wealth is not evil or the enemy. It is the goal.
ct7, 2 years before Barack Obama ran for president he was still paying on his student loans. How did he NOT pay for his own schooling if he was paying on his student loans?
LOGIC MAN!!! Use some logic!
Loans paid back with taxpayer money. The evil 1% paid for his education !!!!
He wrote a fantasy. Was a do nothing senator. Dreams of my do nothing dad who ignored and did not claim me?
“Loans paid back with taxpayer money.”
When you work for the government…yes, you get paid with taxpayer money, unlike Romney who worked for a private company that enjoyed taxpayer subsidies to add to the profits
Wealth is not evil or the enemy. It is the goal.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1 Timothy 6:10
“Was a do nothing senator.”
What Obama was brilliant at…and still is….is not taking conservative bait. Rather than vote on ridiculous legislation that the only intention is setting up candidates with a record for political purposes, Obama voted neutral, especially when it didn’t affect his constituents. To this day, the conservatives are still frustrated and created “do nothing”.
Here is Obama’s voting record – 130 pages of it. That should be enough to demonstrate he was far beyond “do nothing”
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/O000167/votes/
Childish responses to adult conversation.
Oh well…it’s to be expected.
This whole poll tax digression is an attempt to diminish legitimate concerns about patterns of voter repression of typically Democratic voters (poor and black) through absurdist reduction.
“The cost of time, fuel, bus/ taxi fare is a poll tax.”
If you voted at a poll and not by mail is the trip to the poll a tax?
Can you walk to a polling station? My parents used to vote within walking distance of our home because in those days voters were encouraged to vote. Today they restrict the number of polling stations to attempt keep people from voting.
The conservatives want to pretend that this is a real issue, but then they come up with sophomoric garbage like this.
Which has more impact on an election? A machine that can be manipulated to turn results or a handful of “illegal” voters? When I see conservatives worry about voting machines and the ability for a felon to manipulate the outcome of voting with financial backing, I’ll know that they are serious about voting fraud. Meanwhile, it’s just another strawman to attack voters that they can’t convince they serve.
Meanwhile:
“Yesterday, a jury found Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White (R) guilty on six felony counts of voter fraud, theft, and perjury. The conviction cost White his job, though he plans to ask the judge to reduce the charges to misdemeanors and hopes to perhaps regain the position.”
The Congressional Research Service identified 64 “majority minority” districts in the US, where more than half of the population is black or Hispanic. The 20 selected for analysis were those with the highest percentage living in poverty. The low-minority districts chosen were those with the highest median household income according to 1990 census data.
[...]
The findings of the study were summarized in several major conclusions. First, poor and minority voters were more than three times as likely as wealthy ones to have their ballots discarded. The 20 districts with high rates of poverty had a 4 percent ballot rejection rate, compared to only 1.2 percent in the wealthy districts.
In some cases the rate of rejection was 20 times greater in the poor districts. The 1st District of Illinois and the 17th District of Florida had an undercount rate of 7.9 percent—nearly 1 out of every 12 ballots cast were not counted. In six other widely separated poorer districts—in Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, New York, North Carolina and Georgia—the discard rate was more than 5 percent. Every one of the ten districts with the highest percentage of uncounted ballots had a high poverty rate and a high minority population. Ten of the 40 districts studied had less than 1 percent of ballots uncounted. Eight of these were wealthy districts. Only four of the richer districts had an undercount rate of more than 1 percent.
I would rather have found another source for this but, since it is citing a Congressional study, I am going with it
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/vote-j17.shtml
However, the majority of recent stories about election fraud by undercount are focused upon the GOP primaries and caucuses. The non-Mitt candidate supporters continue to be more than a little suspicious about how those votes are being counted…..
Re-examine the placement of Polling Places in 2004 in Ohio by a Republican official and try to conclude that voter suppression isn’t a continuing issue.
John Pappageorge, a Republican state legislator in Michigan said in the summer of 2004, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.”
Romney said and did what it took to get elected in Ted Kennedy’s back yard – still couln’t beat him head-to-head – and is now preaching another tune to get voters from an entirely different political spectrum. The GOP leadership may prefer him to Newt, but Obama will have an easier opponent in Mitt than he would in Newt.
That’s not even counting those fervently opposed to Obama, but just can’t bring themselves to vote for anyone in the morman cult.
It would seem that Republicans, for the past 12 years or so, have a consistent history of using political power to serve their own needs, many times in contravention of the law. And it seems the Republicans are again actively attempting to use political power now to control who is allowed to cast votes in the upcoming election.
To be fair there have been Democrats who have also used the power of their office(s) to their own advantage, but the scales are more weighted down on the Republican side by far.
There is a Wikipedia page for “Political Scandals” that lists during which Presidential terms these scandals occurred. It’s very interesting to note the very different numbers between the Democrats versus the Republicans throughout both the current Obama Administration and the previous Bush Administration.
Counting ONLY the major bulleted items on the list:
During the Obama Administration beginning in January 2009, includes this breakdown of political scandals listed on this Wiki page:
Non or Bi-Partisan: 2
Democrat: 1
Republican: 3
During the Bush Administration from January 2001 to January 2009 lists this breakdown of political scandals:
Non or Bi-Partisan: 12
Democrat: 5
Republican: 21
It would certainly seem as though the Republicans are far more experienced at creating political scandals in their efforts to manipulate people and situations to serve their needs, with apparent flagrant disregard of the law.
I suppose these numbers could mean the Republicans just get caught more often than the Democrats do, because of basic ineptness. Or, it could, and probably does mean that the Republicans are more prone to use dubious methods to achieve their goals, under an “end justify the means” philosophy. You’d really have to take each case by it’s own merits to determine how you personally view the overall intent.
Brief explanations and links to other wiki pages describing these scandals in detail can be found at the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States
Really bB? The World Socialist Web Site again? LOL
Spin aside (from both you and them), they provide the solution to this proportionally minuscule… problem in the following paragraph:
The study showed that when newer technology was used the disparity in the undercount rate between the poorer and richer districts was far smaller, dropping to only 0.6 percentage points in the case of precinct-counted optiscan machines. This finding indicated that faulty or outdated machinery played a far greater role in the failure to count ballots than voter error.
So what is your/ their point? I doubt the Congressional Research Service drew conclusions approaching your and the WSWS’s implications. And since this report was “carried out at the request of the Democratic members of the House Committee on Government Reform”, and concerns an election that is now nearly 12 years past, the question begs:
As opposed to the verisimilitude you are putting forth, which would be easier to accomplish in today’s vote-by-mail reality; voter suppression, or voter fraud?
The answer is as plain as the head on your… beer.
Didn’t vox wear out the “communist/socialist” boogeyman on the other thread?
All of the hullabaloo doesn’t change the point that we have a REAL voter fraud issue in Indiana with a GOP SoS and the GOP wants to talk about individual people getting ID.
Socialism and communism are as old as civilization. The only people that cry wolf about them are those that wish to play a scare game.
Since I already acknowledged the obvious bias of my source, I’m thinking you should get a flag for piling on….
With the ease of hacking touch-screen, paper-less (thus not subject to a non-electronic audit) voting machines from off-site locations….the technological solution creates another problem.
At any rate – any concerns about voting fraud, of any kind, then it follows that we all should be supporting blackbox.org or like organizations that are dedicated to monitoring our electoral process.
“The attempt to prevent blacks from voting has been a staple of America’s political history, like long-winded speeches and balloons. I wrote three columns last month about a situation in Orlando, Fla., in which armed state police officers went into the homes of elderly black voters to question them as part of a so-called criminal investigation involving absentee ballots. This tactic sent a definite chill through voters who were old enough to remember the torment inflicted on Southern blacks who tried to vote in the 1950′s and 60′s.”
Let me guess. It was the socialists.
Nope – New Black Panthers.
HTH
BTW, Kardy, have you tried walking to your nearest polling station (no longer applicable) or ballot box (drop-off) lately?
Mine is a mile and a half from my home in Tacoma. If you’d get out of the lounge and lay off the martinis a bit, you might have noticed things have changed significantly from the days of the old neighborhood polling booth.
So, since Pierce County no longer has the authority to conduct elections at traditional polling places, that means a $.45 cent stamp, roughly the equivalent in gas, a $2.00 bus fare (which would take about an hour, round trip), get scalped for taxi fare, or walk in God only knows what weather conditions (esp. in Nov.).
By your logic, this is a poll tax that is repeated each time I vote – which can be three or four times a year.
And for the benefit of your comprehension issues, my only comment about communism showed that kook-fo-kook, 0bama wins the raspberry endorsement award, hands-down.
Extrapolate, spin, deflect away – it’s what you do… it’s all you do… well, there’s the martini music thing too I guess, LOL.
On the flip side, why does the left want no accountability? Why do they want illegals and felons to vote?
CT7 – more like the 99% paid for Obama’s education, just as they paid for mine.
Vox can only recognize left spin and is blind to wing-nut spin.
Vox – why do the neocons fascists want only affluent white people to vote?
“Why do they want illegals and felons to vote?”
Felons. Hmmmm…would that be like any of the Republican Congressmen who have been charged with crimes? They may not vote, but they certainly have a lot to say about the money spent on campaigns. Let’s take Tom Delay for an example…..
Show me one case where an illegal alien as voted. Then show me who they voted for. What if they were an illegal from Cuba, who are notoriously conservative “anti-Castro” people?
con…7: “On the flip side, why does the left want no accountability? Why do they want illegals and felons to vote?”
Who would want felons to vote?
Why, that would be NEWT, would it not?
“From his prison cell in Arizona, former GOP Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham wrote a letter in December – in all caps – to onetime colleague Newt Gingrich embracing the former speaker’s bid for president and offering a few political pointers.”
“I have 80 percent of inmates that would vote for you. They might not be able to but their extended families will,” Cunningham wrote, in a missive posted by Voice of San Diego. They’ve posted the full letter here.” (at this link…)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dept-of-unwanted-endorsements-convict-cunningham-backs-gingrich-20120127
With the ease of hacking touch-screen, paper-less (thus not subject to a non-electronic audit) voting machines from off-site locations….the technological solution creates another problem.
Ohay… but it sounds like an equal opportunity problem. So again, what’s your point? ‘Cuz you seem to be insinuating that this type of fraud is endemic to Republicans.
So here we go again – concisely, if not succinctly described by Michael Barone:
The Bush team won every important decision by a court in Florida, except for two decisions by partisan Democrat Florida Supreme Court. All seven members of this court had been appointed by a Democrat governor. Ignoring both Florida law (e.g., the date when all counties had to report their results to the Secretary of State) and the decisions of the lower courts, the Florida Supreme Court used its power to keep the election dispute alive, in the hope, presumably, that some recount would eventually put Gore ahead.
The unspoken truth of the 2000 election dispute in Florida is always ignored by the left: Gore never led; not on election night, not after any statewide recount, not after adding the votes from county hand recounts, and not even in the exhaustive statewide post—election recounts conducted by the major state and national newspapers (in almost all of which Bush wound up ahead when any consistent method of counting was used.) Pick your method of counting chads, and it doesn’t matter. Bush won.
Another myth is that Gore simply wanted all the votes counted. This is absolutely false. Gore lawyers and their supporters attempted to disqualify votes of some military voters overseas, and of absentee voters in several Florida counties. Both groups, not surprisingly, strongly supported Bush.
On the other hand, they tried to create votes that the machines had determined contained no vote for President (the ‘undervote’), but only in four heavily Democratic counties: Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia. In each of these counties, Democratic Party officials would control the hand count of the ‘undervote.’ So this was no exercise in civic minded duty — the logic was to find votes for Gore, and cancel votes for Bush.
The left likes to say that the United States Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. They did no such thing. What they did was reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s effort to keep on counting until Gore won. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v Gore may not have been a model of jurisprudence, but the left also ignores the fact that the decision to over—rule the Florida Supreme Court was not a 5—4 decision dictated by the five conservative members of the Court, but a 7 to 2 decision. Even two liberals on the Court were offended by the machinations of the Florida court and its creation of a chaotic vote counting system for the ‘undervotes’.
The system decreed by the Florida Supreme Court in its 4 to 3 ruling (bitterly condemned by the Court’s own Chief Justice as ‘overreaching’) would have allowed inconsistent rules for counting the ‘undervotes’ even within an individual county. For example, the Florida Supreme Court decided to accept the results of a partially completed hand recount performed in Dade County by a group of county officials using one set of rules and then add to it the results of a hand recount of the remainder of the county’s ‘undervote’ to be performed by a different set of counters in Tallahassee, whose counting rules were not established.
The Florida Supreme Court also decided to accept the results of hand recounts completed in Broward, Volusia and Palm Beach Counties, though each county had established very different standards for identifying which partially punched ballots were to be considered actual votes. (Broward had adopted the most liberal standard, and gave Gore his biggest boost during the 37 day period: almost 600 net votes.)
No clear rules for how to count or not count the ‘undervote’ in Florida’s other counties were established by the Florida Supreme Court, and seven U.S. Supreme Court justices concluded this new Florida counting system was so arbitrarily varied from county to county that it denied some Florida voters the equal protection of the law, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In retrospect, the U.S. Supreme Court action probably prevented the theft of the election in Florida from occurring.
The US Supreme Court decision over—ruling the Florida Supreme Court had two parts: the first a 7 to 2 vote over—ruling the vote counting system established by the Florida Supreme Court ; the second a 5 to 4 vote, requiring the vote count to be concluded almost immediately so that Florida could participate in the Electoral College process.
Had the second decision been 5 to 4 the other way, it is likely that the Florida count would not have been concluded in time for the state to determine a winner and select a slate of electors to the Electoral College. In that case, one of two scenarios would have played out. One is that the Florida legislature, Republican dominated, would have selected the Bush electors to vote in the Electoral College. Alternatively, no Florida electors would have been selected, and neither Bush nor Gore would have won a majority of the Electoral College vote. In that case, the US House of Representatives, voting by states (as in 1824), would have picked Bush since the GOP controlled more state delegations than the Democrats. So even if the 5—4 portion of the U.S. Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, Bush would still have become our President.
With the benefit of hindsight provided by the post—election newspaper recounts, we now know that the charge that the U.S. Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush by stopping the recount, cannot be sustained, even assuming the Florida statewide recount could have been completed in time. These newspaper recounts revealed that had the hand recount of the ‘undervote’ been allowed to be completed statewide, Bush would have won anyway, using almost every consistently applied standard that was considered by the newspapers.
Test tomorrow.
I wrote three columns last month about a situation in Orlando, Fla.
Who is “I”, Kardy? Once again you post baseless rubbish without attribution.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s accurate.
Not sure why you reference Florida 2000, I was referencing Ohio 2004.
How in the world did this go from Mitt: columniest,etc. to voter fraud??
And for MM: InoyarbutwutmI? – if you think you are cute, think again because you sound like a sarcastic piece of crap on these posts. Anyway, back at you for whatever you meant> I wouldn’t take my precious time figuring out the boloney you must spew.
“you sound like a sarcastic piece of crap on these posts”
I’m sure glad that Darlin isn’t being mean……
“How in the world did this go from Mitt: columniest,etc. to voter fraud??”
Ask Vox
Not sure why you reference Florida 2000, I was referencing Ohio 2004.
The report you linked was commissioned as a result of the 2000 election, and the myth of the Florida stolen election, soooo…..
“How in the world did this go from Mitt: columniest,etc. to voter fraud??”
Ask Vox
What, am I you spokesman now Larry?
Darlin, the answer can be found in beerBoy’s FEB. 5, 2012 AT 8:52 AM post, above.
And great observation concerning the resident Sybil.
Thanks Vox, and M Martin – I am not being mean, just truthful. Maybe you just come off like a total jerk, but I highly doubt it. If you are just a lonely negative jerk then I am truly sorry for you but my comment stands:)
Darlin….sniff…sniff…you’re being mean spirited…sniff…
If I wait long enough…the hypocrisy always shows
Like when you support bailouts then cry about bailouts?
I am glad to see you acknowledge that you are a hypocrite. Next up is bigot and racist, and you will really be making some progress.
You did not prove he did anything except buy dying companies. He keep them open longer than they would under the original owners, and had to find ways to make them profitable.
You love your anti-capitalistic DNC talking points but Mitt provided a service, and all parties benefitted.
As this topic concerns a radical right-wing Republican journalist attacking the veracity of a Republican presidential candidate, then the following seems to apply:
CAUTION: To right-leaning persons on this web. You may find the following article somewhat disturbing. Read it slowly.
Most radicalism linked to Internet, say UK lawmakers
Service providers must fight spread of extremism, says a report — but privacy is a concern. AP updated 2/5/2012 7:26:12 PM ET
LONDON — Internet service providers should do more to prevent the Web from playing a role in promoting violent extremism, British lawmakers said in a report published Monday.
The Internet has become an important factor in nurturing the extremist threat, surpassing universities and prisons as a place where dangerous ideas are developed and traded, the lawmakers said.
…
“We remain concerned by the growing support for nonviolent extremism and more extreme and violent forms of far-right ideology,” the Home Affairs Committee said in its report, which follows a nine-month inquiry.
…
It also warns of a threat from the far right — which it said consists mostly of “solitary, disaffected individuals” — rather than organized terrorist units — and called for better information-sharing between prison bosses, the police and the UK Border Agency following the release of prisoners who have been convicted of terror offenses.
Britain’s Home Office said it would consider the committee’s findings.
“We are working closely with the police and Internet service providers to take Internet hate off the Web,” it said in a statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46274740/ns/technology_and_science-security/#.Ty9NhZgXg8M
(Don’t you wish someone was working with someone to take the hate off this web?)
ct7_nos – since you have nothing sensible to offer the dialog and love to be contrary, regardless of proof that you are wrong.
You have just disappeared.
Oh, I’m dead to you? How sad. Don’t flatter yourself Kard, I am proud.
But I will be here, pointing out your garbage rhetoric, your bigotry, and your lack of knowledge.
I predicted this last Spring: Romney wins the nomination, Obama gets re-elected.
Romney Takes Nevada, But Obama Takes The Lead
President Obama has snuck ahead of Romney among registered voters, 51 percent to 45 percent. What’s more, 50 percent of voters in the new poll approve of Obama’s job performance and the same percentage say he deserves re-election. http://abcn.ws/z3pXsy
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-takes-nevada-obama-takes-lead-note-133150286–abc-news.html
BillOReilly comments muckibr = ManuelMartini = Lord knows HOW many on here. Same guy, same tired, irritating rants.
Oh…the irony….looks like BillLarryJim has returned!
SP is back?
beerBoy – thanks for the latest poll. I think we’ve all known for a long time that Obama isn’t quite as negative as the extreme right would like everyone to think.
Too funny, bB, cuz’ Gallup still has him @ 45%, with 48 on the disapprove side. But then, ABC/ WAPo vs Gallup…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
Still under 50% in every poll but the one you chose. And his average lead over Romney in all polls is +4%. Last time I checked that was within the margin of error. At this stage of the game – 7 months ahead of the convention, many debates and primaries still ahead, I would take a -4% if I were in the Romney camp.
http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Shows Obama at 48.5% AVERAGE. Rasmussen (!!!) has him at 50% as does ABC
RASMUSSEN???????????
“his average lead over Romney in all polls is +4%”
That’s right. He leads Willard in almost all polls. Get used to it.
If you want to know about Mitt’s character, go to snopes, type in Romney and Robert Gay’s daughter to read a good example of what type of man he is.
SandHills said, “That’s not even counting those fervently opposed to Obama, but just can’t bring themselves to vote for anyone in the morman cult.”
For the record, we Mormons may only be 1.7% of the US population, but we do tend to be very active voters. I think any people voting against “the morman cult” will be balanced by those who would vote for Mitt Romney because he is LDS. Personally, I feel that using such criteria to pick a political leader is silly…
Mitt Romney’s strength – and his weakness – is his apparent honesty. He says what he thinks, sometimes without taking into account how easily clumsy wording can be twisted and used out of context.
I understand what he was trying to say about the poor having a safety next and can’t say I totally disagree with him. We do have programs to help the poor in our society – although budget cuts and imperfect implementation have rendered some of the “safety nets” less effective than they should be. I think he acknowledged that when he said, “…but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it.”
His wording was definitely awkward. Unlike here in these forums where we can type then read over our words and correct awkward wording and mistakes before hitting submit, Mitt Romney (and the other politicians) ‘hit the submit button’ as soon as they open their mouths. Words, once said, can not be changed or unsaid.
Since our president represents us as a country, a candidates ability to express himself on the fly will be an important consideration when I vote for president next November. Also, I have to look at Mitt Romney’s apparent ignorance of how many people in this country live in poverty.
That said, now that Jon Huntsman has dropped out of the race, I still feel that Mitt Romney has a better chance against President Obama than any of the other Republican candidates still running. Newt Gingrich has been guilty of more than his own share of awkward wording and has shown a past history of having difficulty working with even members of his own party. The other two candidates have very loyal fringe followings but can not even muster enough Republican votes, much less the independent and moderate votes needed to win the president’s seat.
Just for the record – I would have voted for Jon Huntsman over Obama.
My rejection of Mitt has nothing to do with his religion, it is his Mittness.
Mitt Romney has no character flaws that I know of. I don’t agree with his business practices or that he made millions with the assistance of the government, but that is not a character issue.
That being said, aside from a honest admission to a little dope dabbling as a kid, President Obama has impecable character, unless you ask a Republican.
beerBoy,
I also would have voted for Jon Huntsman over Mitt Romney – or possibly even President Obama – but that’s a moot (mitt?) point at this juncture. While I definitely prefer Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich (…it is his Gingrichness), I’m still not sure I would prefer him over President Obama – even if I am a bit miffed over the whole Guantanamo Bay prison issue.
Both gentlemen, Mitt Romney and President Obama, are good men of decent character – and both of them seem a little “out of touch” at times. In the end, it will be their policies that will inform my vote.
Typical slime at Feb 6, 2:59 PM
alt