March 19, 2012

Bush v. Gore is "the case of the century" because it "truly altered history," even though it "didn’t change constitutional doctrine."

Writes TNR's Jonathan Cohn setting up a discussion of whether this year's big Obamacare decision will be the new case of the century. Well, the century is pretty young, and admittedly Bush v. Gore felt like a huge deal at the time. But "truly altered history"?
Just think how the years after 2001 would have unfolded if Al Gore had been president.
Ridiculous! I can't believe Cohn doesn't know that if the case had gone the other way Gore would still have lost in the end!
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.
That's the news from 2001. And speaking of 2001, does Cohn actually think that Gore would not have responded vigorously to the 9/11 attacks? 

Anyway, I have close to zero interest in reading what Cohn has to say about this year's big case.
I generally leave the sophisticated constitutional analysis to Jeff Rosen, my (much) more informed colleague. But you don't have to be a legal expert to....
Fortunately, I can do my own legal analysis. I'm certainly not interested in Cohn's. As for Rosen's... I don't need to read that either. I know what he'll say. 

144 comments:

John Lynch said...

I don't see why Bush v. Gore was a big deal.

Bush got more votes in Florida. Every count after the election showed that. The twists and turns and irrelevant detail that people have to use to bury this simple fact is a testament to the human power to delude ourselves.

So... what's the big deal? The Supreme Court overruled a lower court and the Supreme Court turned out to be right.

The case would have been a big deal if the court had sided with Gore. That would have changed the entire mechanism for choosing a President.

Steven said...

Bush v. Gore happened in 2000. That means it happened in the last century, not this one, which started January 1, 2001.

And claiming Bush v. Gore was the biggest case of the 20th Century is obviously risible.

Michael K said...

The part that interests me is the fact that Gore seemed the more practical when compared to Clinton on foreign policy. Clinton ignored all the attacks by Iran during his presidency as well as those by al Qaeda. My theory is that Gore was unhinged by his loss to Bush and went off on his global warming delusion to compensate. Remember that Kerry said to aides "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy !" I think Gore had a worse reaction.

At the time, I wasn't all that concerned about who won. It was nothing like my apprehension about Obama in 2008 and now.

Fen said...

The Supreme Court overruled a lower court and the Supreme Court turned out to be right

They didn't merely overrule it, they "voided" the state supreme courts ruling. That's the judicial equivalent of saying "you guys were must have been smoking crack that day"

The Drill SGT said...

"We was Robbed"

some folks can't move beyond that idea. Many of the delusional are journalists.

Wait till after the election this year. If O'Bama loses, I suspect we'll see koolaid tubs in Harvard Yard and Sproul Plaza.

John said...

Ann,

It is like the Right Wing killed Kennedy. That Al Gore was robbed of the 2000 election is an article of faith with these people. The facts cannot get in the way of the narrative.

And lets not forget that Al Gore was more hawkish about Iraq in the late 1990s than George Bush. The idea that a President Gore would have done exactly the same things after 9-11 that Bush did is a possibility too horrible for feeble minds like Cohen's to contemplate.

Revenant said...

Even if Bush v. Gore HAD changed the outcome of the election, the claim that it was "the case of the century" would still be idiotic.

Just off the top of my head:

- Wickard v. Filburn, which gave Congress the power to regulate entirely private activity

- Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down racial segregation

- Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the expulsion of Japanese-Americans from the west coast

There are countless others. The difference between Bush and Gore is comparatively trivial.

Pogo said...

If Gore had been Prez, Gore v. Released Chakras would have become the case of the century.

"It depends on that the meaning of 'jizz' is"

John said...

Reventent

I think Coehn means the 21st Century.

Original Mike said...

What Steven said.

I thought lawyers were a stickler for such things.

sunsong said...

I have a question about the Commerce Clause:

[Congress shall have power] "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Why isn't it considered obvious that the word "commerce" - which is used only once in the entire clause - does not mean the same thing when *applied* to foreign Nations, the several States and the Indian Tribes. How can it be argued that *commerce* means forcing a US citizens to buy something - when it would never be argued that Congress has the power to compel a foreign nation to buy something?

alan markus said...

Just today I was just thinking of what if Tipper Gore had been First Lady?

Cee Lo Green Performs "F**k You," Flips Off Crowd At Obama Fundraiser

Ann Althouse said...

@Revenant Obviously, we have to first agree upon which century Bush v. Gore was in.

Assuming it's the 21st century, I think it's a harder question. (What about Citizens United?)

To call it the greatest case of the 20th century is just embarrassing. To put it ahead of Brown? Absurd. What about Youngstown Steel and the Watergate tapes case?

I don't even think it's in the top 10.

But Cohn is speaking as a journalist. Bush v. Gore certainly got a ton of coverage, just like the election.

Ann Althouse said...

"It is like the Right Wing killed Kennedy. That Al Gore was robbed of the 2000 election is an article of faith with these people. The facts cannot get in the way of the narrative."

And yet the liberals like to think of themselves as fact-based, rational, and scientific!

John said...

President crazed sex poodle. I love how the fact that Al Gore tried to molest a massage therapist has been put down the memory hole.

alan markus said...

By the way, if you weren't around in the mid 80's, you wouldn't understand the Tipper Gore comment.

roesch/voltaire said...

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did. The findings indicate that Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.”

I ♥ Willard said...

I can't believe Cohn doesn't know that if the case had gone the other way Gore would still have lost in the end!

Professor, I'm confused by your comment and link. The USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study is a review of the Florida undervote only. However, IIRC, the Florida Supreme Court required a manual count of overvotes as well. Can you cite a source that proves your claim about the results of the Florida Supreme Court mandated recount?

David said...

The Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, the only dissenter in the Florida decisions, warned his colleagues in his opinion that the remedy they sought was not constitutional. (Apparently Gore's own counsel had explained this risk to Gore as well, but Gore rejected this worry, apparently thinking that Equal Protection was not important in his march to the Presidency.)

Seven of the nine justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the Florida majority decision violated the equal protection clause of the federal constitution.

The partisan majority of the Florida Supreme Court had painted themselves into a corner. They ignored the equal protection issue in their result oriented rush, and then ignored the provisions of Florida law that required a resolution by December 12.

The great irony is that the only way Gore might have prevailed was to have agreed to a statewide recount under a single procedure from the outset. There is no doubt that Gore's lawyers explained the risks of this approach to him. He nevertheless tried to have a partial recount that he felt would advantage him. Gore is a stupid man, and his stupid decision cost him his only shot at winning the Florida delegates.

edutcher said...

Remember how everyone said, "Thank God the adults are in charge", after 9/11?

That's the real alteration of history.

Michael K said...

The part that interests me is the fact that Gore seemed the more practical when compared to Clinton on foreign policy.

No.

Look up Albert's conduct during the Senate vote on the Gulf War in '91.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"How can it be argued that *commerce* means forcing a US citizens to buy something - when it would never be argued that Congress has the power to compel a foreign nation to buy something?"

You're mixing up the definition of the enumerated powers with other affirmative limitations on govt power. The Commerce Clause would include a lot of things that are then excluded by other provisions. For example censoring the press would fit the commerce power, but it's unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The question in this case (the main question) has to do with whether Congress, pursuant to this gigantic effort at regulating the market in health insurance can, as part of its means of achieving this end, require that every individual participate in the market.

There are all these nonbuyers who don't have big expenses yet, and they stay out of the insurance pool because that makes economic sense for them individually. That makes the insurance very expensive, of course. Imagine what auto insurance would be if only the accident-prone drivers wanted to buy it. You have to get everyone in to make it affordable.

Original Mike said...

"Obviously, we have to first agree upon which century Bush v. Gore was in."

It was decided in Dec of 2000, wasn't it? That was the last year of the 20th century.

Robert Cook said...

Actually, there were several recount scenarious, and under more than one of them, Gore would have won.

It is not so definitive that Bush won or would have been determined to have won.

This is also discounting entirely the many voters who were disenfranchised that day by being sent to polling places that were not theirs, and also thousands who were removed from the voting rolls because they had names identical to or similar to the names of known felons.

David said...

As RV points out, Gore might have won a complete statewide recount.

One reason the Florida Supreme Court did not order such a recount is that Gore did not ask for one. He felt his partial recount strategy had a better chance of delivering the votes. In choosing this strategy, he ignored the risks explained by his lawyers involving the doubtful constitutionality of the partial recount under the equal protection clause.

As I said above, Al Gore is a stupid man. He made a stupid decision, and it may have cost him.

Bob Ellison said...

David said "Al Gore is a stupid man. He made a stupid decision, and it may have cost him."

He seems fairly smart to me. He's mega-rich, after all. What cost him the Presidency may have won him his riches.

Fen said...

Cook: Actually, there were several recount scenarious, and under more than one of them, Gore would have won.

No. There were not.

roesch/voltaire said...

David, I agree Gore has made some stupid decisions, but I can not predict exactly how he would have or not have responded to 9/11 as Althouse does. Perhaps Gore Vs Bush will stand out in history because it will never be referenced again, and was a once-off to ensure an election?

Original Mike said...

Fen - Don't forget, democrats cheat. There's no telling how things actually would have turned out.

Fen said...

Libtard: This is also discounting entirely the many voters who were disenfranchised that day by being sent to polling places that were not theirs, and also thousands who were removed from the voting rolls because they had names identical to or similar to the names of known felons.

You forgot the part where blacks were kept away from the polling by dogs.

And the martians. The martians were in league with the illunitati to mind control seniors into voting for Pat Buchanan.

Rose said...

Case of the century? No - in that election, the nation was split 50/50 - no one really cared for either candidate and the election reflected that - until Gore lost - then he became cause celebre, and all of a sudden he was the left's Preshussssssss.

Gore wanted to recount only the heavily Democrat-infested counties. And pretend he was high-minded about it. Now that we know what a disgusting pig he is - we should be counting our lucky stars that he did lose.

What the subsequent case taught us is that justices vote by party affiliation more than facts. There is no way the vote at that level should have shown ANY party preference. That's the tragedy of our time.

bagoh20 said...

I'd like to see a poll that asks if people know that Bush won the vote anyway, and of course a break down by party affiliation.

Have you noticed that stupid myths held by the left are rarely polled?

Ann Althouse said...

@ David Please read the article I linked to. There was a statewide recount of the undervotes as requested by Gore. Gore lost by much more than he lost by in the original machine count.

Stop spreading this myth!

Peter said...

"There are all these nonbuyers who don't have big expenses yet, and they stay out of the insurance pool because that makes economic sense for them individually. That makes the insurance very expensive, of course. Imagine what auto insurance would be if only the accident-prone drivers wanted to buy it. You have to get everyone in to make it affordable."

This seems a flawed analogy.

First, uninsured people are seldom denied medical treatment; it's just that they don't pay for it (and it may be less convenient to obtain). But no one's going to fix your crashed car for free (let alone pay for the damage you caused).

Second, there's the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. But if you try to buy collision insurance for a car you've already crashed, you'll get laughter, not coverage.

And then there's (dare I mention it) the contracptive coverage mandate. Which would be like a mandate for car insurance to cover the cost of routine oil changes (perhaps on the theory that not getting them may cost even more).

machine said...

so much for "states rights"...there are no conservatives...and then the Court claims this is a one time deal--cannot use as precedent...

what would repubs do if the Court claims that with the mandate?

David said...

So rich = smart?

The list of stupid rich people, including rich people who made their own money, is long.

In Gore's case, he just piggybacked on a lifetime of political experience to find where the flow of government largesse was going. In some cases he teamed with actual smart people to create the means to harvest the largesse, but his contribution was to lead them to the money flow.

This does not take smarts to do.

(I am the same age as Al Gore. I've watched him for most of my life. I met him once and talked to him for some time during that meeting. I know people who were involved at a high--though not the highest--level in the Bush v. Gore lawsuit. All this evidence leads me to the conclusion that Al Gore is a stupid man where it counts--in the tough, complex decisions involving judgment and weight of conflicting factors. He can sound smart, but at crunch time he is stupid.)

Pogo said...

The left derides creationism, but holds firmly to their beliefs that Gore really won! and in global warming.

But only creationism is actually harmless to others.

Roger J. said...

While not particularly a Gore fan, I suspect he would have grown into the presidency much like Harry Truman did. That said, these "woulda, coulda, shouda" debates are execises in navel gazing--much like analyzing Mr Truman's decision to nuke Japan. He did, and brought an end to the war--now lets debate that decision! Once the horse has left the barn, all these debates do is take up pixels.

David said...

Speaking of stupid . . . . .

so much for "states rights"...there are no conservatives...and then the Court claims this is a one time deal--cannot use as precedent...

That's a TV sound bite talking point, not an argument.

Original Mike said...

"But only creationism is actually harmless to others."

I don't know about that.

Henry said...

I've always thought we'd be better off if Gore won. Because with Gore we would have had a pro-war Democrat, much as we do with Obama. It would have defused Bush-Derangement-Syndrome before it started.

Second we would have had divided government. The worst domestic failures of the Bush administration would have had a domestic opposition.

In short, we would have avoided the deranged opposition of the left against an active foreign policy. We would have gained a rational opposition from the right to the invasive domestic presidency that Bush promulgated.

Or maybe not. You never know.

bgates said...

You're mixing up the definition of the enumerated powers with other affirmative limitations on govt power.

No, you're confusing the issue of what the definition of a specific enumerated power is with an irrelevant discussion of other sections of the Constitution. Censoring the press would fall under the Commerce Clause only if you accept the essentially totalitarian view that the Commerce Clause grants plenary power to the federal government, which power is occasionally circumscribed by a grant of limited enumerated rights to the people through other provisions of the Constitution.

I think Hamilton was right:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not content that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.

Anyway, you completely failed to respond to sunsong's point, which is that Obamacare defenders must believe either that the word "Commerce" means two entirely distinct things in the Constitution - despite being written only once - or that Congress has the power to compel foreign nations to make purchases.

roesch/voltaire said...

Althouse should stop spreading the myth-- this from a Jan. 11th story in the Orlando Sentinel:
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did. The findings indicate that Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.”
and the link to the informative article:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2011/01/bush-v-gore-who-really-won-florida.html

David said...

And by the way, "smart" is overrated. Character, judgment, experience, stability, and similar traits can overcome smarts in most contexts. Gore's claim to "smart" has to be evaluated in this light as well.

Original Mike said...

"And by the way, "smart" is overrated."

That's what I keep telling myself.

Roger J. said...

this whole debate smacks more of the "was Alger Hiss a communist." That was debated for 30 years and when the Kremlin finally release the documents, yes, Alger Hiss was a communist and a traitor.

David said...

RV, it is true that "Gore might have won" a count on the basis you describe. Stupid man, he did not want a count on that basis, and tried to avoid it for so long that it became impossible to do such a count in compliance with Florida law.

We will never know nor will he. I suspect he must work hard to banish this thought from his present consciousness.

Joe Schmoe said...

I thought the O.J. case was the case of the century.

David said...

Funny, Mike.

I am living proof that it's overrated.

Revenant said...

irst, uninsured people are seldom denied medical treatment; it's just that they don't pay for it

Do you actually believe that if you walk into a doctor's office, the conversation goes like this?:

You: I broke my leg
Doctor: What insurance do you have?
You: None whatsoever!
Doctor: Well, then it's on the house!

Back here in reality, they send you a bill and expect you to pay it. If you don't pay it, you get to enjoy all the same fun you do when you fail to pay any other bill -- late fees, collection agencies, etc.

"Doesn't have insurance" does not mean "doesn't have money".

Roger J. said...

Mike wins the thread, with a red ribbon to Joe Schmoe.

Me? I'd rather be lucky than smart and as it turns out, I am neither.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harold said...

Robert Cook said...
Actually, there were several recount scenarious, and under more than one of them, Gore would have won.

It is not so definitive that Bush won or would have been determined to have won.

This is also discounting entirely the many voters who were disenfranchised that day by being sent to polling places that were not theirs, and also thousands who were removed from the voting rolls because they had names identical to or similar to the names of known felons.

3/19/12 2:15 PM

You forgot about the panhandle of Florida- you know, the heavilily Republican part of the state. The part that still had polls open when ALL the major networks and cable stations announced that the polls in FLORIDA were closed, which suppressed voter turnout- because why go to the polls when they are closed? That had a larger affect then all the other issues on the final count.

Robert Cook said...

"'Cook: Actually, there were several recount scenarious, and under more than one of them, Gore would have won.'

Fen: "No. There were not."


Yes, there were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount


http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/13/local/me-3631

http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/florida.htm

And so on.

The issue is really less whether it was actually Gore or Bush who won, and more that the Supreme Court inserted itself into the process unnecessarily.

It certainly gives the appearance that the fix was in.

Revenant said...

The findings indicate that Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.”

"If Gore has pursued a case other than the one he actually pursued, he might have won".

How does this serve to debunk the "myth" that he would have lost if the lower court ruling had been allowed to stand?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The issue is really less whether it was actually Gore or Bush who won, and more that the Supreme Court inserted itself into the process unnecessarily.


No. Actually it was the Florida Supreme Court inserting themselves unnecessarily in a federal election. They left the US Supreme court with no choice.

Original Mike said...

"Doesn't have insurance" does not mean "doesn't have money".

There was a SuperBowl ad several years ago that I loved. Man presents at the Emergency Room with "money coming out the whazoo".

Hospital administrator comes into the surgery suite; "Does this man have insurance?" Surgeon looks up, $100 bill in forceps: "Insurance? He has money coming out the whazoo!"

Robert Cook said...

"And by the way, 'smart' is overrated. Character, judgment, experience, stability, and similar traits can overcome smarts in most contexts. Gore's claim to "smart" has to be evaluated in this light as well."

I doubt "smart" is overrated, and we so rarely see it in our elected representatives, but I agree that, absent character, good judgment and stability--maybe experience, but not necessarily--"smart" is usually not sufficient.

Bob Ellison said...

If we take Gore as a conniving, morally lacking guy out merely to be rich, then his record would seem to be evidence of smarts.

If we decide instead that he is apparently an honest, morally upright fellow out mostly to do right by the country and the world, then his record would suggest that he's not too bright.

Can't he be both?

Roger J. said...

As an aside, but perhaps relevant--assuming the Florida votes went for Gore, when the electoral college met would that have decided the outcome?

edutcher said...

Henry said...

I've always thought we'd be better off if Gore won. Because with Gore we would have had a pro-war Democrat, much as we do with Obama.

GodZero is no more pro-war than the Living Redwood.

Zero is sabotaging and unilaterally shutting down the War On Terror.

As I said earlier, look up Albert's haggling to vote on the gulf War.

Coketown said...

he findings indicate that Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated...

RV: This is a weak argument based on an absurd counter-factual. Your assertion via the Sentinel is that Gore would have won Florida IF had had pursued in court the broader, state-wide recount. But he didn't. He pursued a recount model limited to specific counties. And every single independent review of those counties proved that Bush won. Regurgitating this state-wide counter-factual has no relevance to Bush v. Gore, or to history, or to the present discussion.

You need to get over it. Gore lost, and no course of action actually pursued by his campaign would have changed that.

TCB-n-a-Flash said...

Wasn't the equal protection part of the Bush v Gore decision 7-2. Even two Liberal Justices thought the Florida Supreme court was making up rules at it went along.

Alex said...

The thing about liberals is they know what they really hate and that's a conservative Republican like Dubya.

Alex said...

Cook - there is book smart and then street smart.

X said...

The bottom line Cookie, is that Gore would have been a war criminal too, just like Bush, Obama, and your mom.

Michael K said...

"Do you actually believe that if you walk into a doctor's office, the conversation goes like this?:

You: I broke my leg"

We were discussing "smart" a minute ago and this is your scenario ?

The Florida Supreme Court, in an excess of partisan zeal, violated Florida law by trying to change the election law after the election. I think they call those "ex post facto."

This why there were seven USSC votes to deny the Gore appeal. Personally, I think it was a mistake to stop the count because the rage it stoked resulted in the Democrats' refusing to consider Bush's appointee nominations until just before 9/11. It also led Bush to retain a bunch of partisan Democrats in the Justice Department. They included those people who should be in jail, who falsified evidence to convict Senator Stevens.

"Second, there's the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions."

This provision, if allowed to stand, will destroy all insurance companies. I suspect that was the intention.

I ♥ Willard said...

Please read the article I linked to. There was a statewide recount of the undervotes as requested by Gore. Gore lost by much more than he lost by in the original machine count.

Stop spreading this myth!


Professor,

Why are you ducking my question? The article to which you linked is an analysis of the undervote ONLY. But the Florida Supreme Court mandated a manual count of both undervotes and overvotes. Therefore the link does not support your claim that if Bush v. Gore "had gone the other way Gore would still have lost in the end."

Professor, this is a rare case where you are guilty of sloppy blogging. Please correct your error. Thank you.

Revenant said...

We were discussing "smart" a minute ago and this is your scenario?

Apologies for trying to lighten things up with a little humor.

I'll stick to being blunt: only a drooling idiot thinks "has no insurance" means "doesn't pay for health care".

Alex said...

WIllard - sounds like you're still butthurt over something that happened 12 years ago.

I ♥ Willard said...

The thing about liberals is they know what they really hate and that's a conservative Republican like Dubya.

Exactly! Liberals hate politicians that balance budgets and keep us out of wars.

Robert Cook said...

"The bottom line Cookie, is that Gore would have been a war criminal too, just like Bush, Obama, and your mom."

My mom is not a war criminal, but Gore certainly would have been had he attacked Iraq as a consequence of 9/11.

Robert Cook said...

"GodZero is no more pro-war than the Living Redwood."

Hmmm...try telling that to all the people he's killing.

I ♥ Willard said...

WIllard - sounds like you're still butthurt over something that happened 12 years ago.

Oh Alex, I don't get "butthurt." I think you're projecting. :(

BTW, I was 15 when Bush v. Gore was decided. It was a fascinating time in American political history, but frankly there were a lot of other things in my life at the time that were more important to me. I'm reasonably certain that, among the Althouse readers, I was one of the least emotionally involved in the events.

Thanks for noticing me again. :)

Alex said...

Willard - then you'd love Bush Sr, he raised taxes!

Revenant said...

Exactly! Liberals hate politicians that balance budgets and keep us out of wars.

The Clinton administration balanced budgets and kept us out of wars?

Did you sleep through the 90s? The wars and deficits were smaller than under Bush and Obama, but they were there. :)

I ♥ Willard said...

Willard - then you'd love Bush Sr, he raised taxes!

Taxes? o_O

Alex must be a liberal. We conservatives balance budgets by lowering taxes and cutting spending.

Henry said...

@edutcher - I'm being slightly wry, but only slightly. Obama is not necessarily a pro-war democrat yet he resolutely pursues warlike options.

One reason I voted for McCain was because Obama invested himself politically to continued war in Afghanistan. He was so determined to not support Iraq, even as it was drawing to a reasonably stable outcome, that he supported a broader war than the supposedly hawklike McCain.

We'll never know, but I think Gore would have been compelled, much like Obama, to pursue a policy of military action when faced with the reality of events. He may not have invaded Iraq, but he would have had to make some horribly difficult decisions and faced their horrendous consequences.

CWJ said...

I'm surprised no one has argued that the biggest difference if Gore had won would be that there would be no entitlement crisis today. The federal gov would be swimming in black ink because there were no irresponsible Bush tax cuts. And in addition, the social security fund would still be cash flow positive because all the payroll taxes had been put into a lock box. No? Anyone? Anyone? No?

I ♥ Willard said...

The Clinton administration balanced budgets and kept us out of wars?

Yeah, the Clinton administration reduced budget deficits until they eventually produced a budget surplus. But when Dubya tried to build on that momentum with tax cuts, the liberals made him go to war and spend tons of money. That's because liberals hate balanced budgets and not being at war. :(

I ♥ Willard said...

The federal gov would be swimming in black ink because there were no irresponsible Bush tax cuts.

Excuse me, but we conservatives know that tax cuts INCREASE tax revenue. We know this because it's true.

Bush's error was in not cutting taxes even more. If a little tax cut increases revenue a little, a big tax cut will increase revenue a lot. Dubya should have been bolder and cut all tax rates to zero, thereby creating an almost limitless supply of revenue to the federal government.

I don't know why politicians are so reluctant to follow common sense solutions. :(

edutcher said...

Lie.

The "surplus" was only theoretical and only existed in projections of the out years.

The deficit never went down and the debt never decreased.

This one has been tried by all the little trolls and they've all been, as Alex put it, butt-hurt in the end.

John Stodder said...

My theory is that Gore was unhinged by his loss to Bush and went off on his global warming delusion to compensate.

Actually, I think it's slightly different from that.

Gore always believed in the anthropomorphic global warming theory, hard. He planned to transform the economy of the world as president. He was persuaded by his advisors, however, that campaigning on such a platform would be a loser. His advisors pointed to polls at the time showing that the environment was about 19th on the top-20 list of issues the public was concerned about.

In retrospect, I think he came to believe that if he had campaigned more as himself, he would have won, and would have also had a mandate to start shutting down the carbon economy. It was his failure to articulate his vision for the future of a post-carbon America that led to his defeat, in his mind.

Revenant said...

Yeah, the Clinton administration reduced budget deficits until they eventually produced a budget surplus.

That's a popular myth, but it ignores two things:

1. Congress, not the President, passes budgets.

2. The debt increased every year during the Clinton administration. The budget was only "balanced" on paper; the government continued to spend more than it took in.

That's because liberals hate balanced budgets and not being at war.

All sarcasm aside, if you actually cared about balanced budgets and not being at war, you'd be voting for Ron Paul -- not Barack Obama. Obama has, after all, launched one new war so far and has (using your "Presidents are responsible for deficits" logic) achieved the largest deficits in human history. :)

I ♥ Willard said...

The "surplus" was only theoretical and only existed in projections of the out years.

You're wrong according to the OMB. But then, what does the OMB know compared to edutcher, they guy who needs to take off his shoes to count past 10. o_O

The deficit never went down

It's really quite sad to witness the consequences of innumeracy. Poor edutcher. :(

I ♥ Willard said...

That's a popular myth

Oh dear, another Althouse reader suffering from denial. :(

The debt increased every year during the Clinton administration. The budget was only "balanced" on paper; the government continued to spend more than it took in.

Ok, this is a bit better. It's based on the fact that you don't understand how deficits can shrink and debts can expand at the same time.

To make this easier for you to understand, look at debt as a percentage of GDP; then you'll see that the debt to GDP ratio decreased at the end of Clinton's second term.

Have a great day! :)

I ♥ Willard said...

if you actually cared about balanced budgets and not being at war, you'd be voting for Ron Paul -- not Barack Obama.

I'm voting for Willard! He never started a single war as Governor of Taxachusetts.

ricpic said...

Gore's response to 9/11 would have been "Why do they hate us?!"

Fen said...

Gore was Vice President

1993 bombing of World Trade Center
1996 bombing of the Kobar Towers
2000 bombing of Attack on USS Cole

Why would anyone think his response to 9-11 would have been any different?

More likely, Gore would have responded to the 9-11 attacks with "fire doesn't melt steel"

Revenant said...

Ok, this is a bit better. It's based on the fact that you don't understand how deficits can shrink and debts can expand at the same time.

It is based on my using normal English instead of the government's Enron-esque terminology.

If you spend more than you take in -- you have a deficit. You're in the red. Honestly, politics is the only place you'll ever see people patting themselves on the back for "only" finishing the year billions of dollars further in debt. :)

cubanbob said...

roesch/voltaire said...
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did. The findings indicate that Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.”

3/19/12 2:06 PM
I ♥ Willard said...
I can't believe Cohn doesn't know that if the case had gone the other way Gore would still have lost in the end!

Professor, I'm confused by your comment and link. The USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study is a review of the Florida undervote only. However, IIRC, the Florida Supreme Court required a manual count of overvotes as well. Can you cite a source that proves your claim about the results of the Florida Supreme Court mandated recount?

3/19/12 2:08 PM

Close but no cigar. First I can tell you living at the time in ground zero of the condo commando gulch ( my precinct was 99.44% registered democrat)I can tell you that not only were there no crowds and delays but the old folks knew exactly who they were voting for and how to punch a paper ballot.

What you guys fail to notice is the stunt the FL Supreme Court ( all liberal justices at the time) tried to pull of: changing the election rules in the election process. That is exactly what the US Supreme Court slapped the FL Supreme Court on the wrist for.

Al Gore was to clever by half, he first wanted a selected recount of a few out of 67 counties, when challenged he then tried to call for a statewide recount using the new manufactured standard of 'intended' vote. Never mind that almost all voters were intelligent enough to punch through the ballot and clear of the chad. To have even tried to do a recount of all the counties with the 'new' standard would have meant the final certified recount could not have been done on time for the FL electoral college to cast it's vote in the electoral college election, thus disenfranchising the state.

Al Gore got what he deserved and what ever class he had he lost with this attempt to steal an election. Contrary to the shills for the democrats, Clinton-Gore were never that popular. In 92 he won a plurality (but for Perot he would have lost). In 96 they barely won by a very close majority in a three way race (with very sleazy and illegal campaign funding, foreshadowing Obama in 2008 and no doubt this year as well). The fact that the 2000 election was a statistical tie against a candidate portrayed as the village idiot and a drunk by the press during what up to 1999 was a good economy tells one everything the voters felt about a 'third' Clinton term.

Just remember in November "its the economy, stupid!"

tim in vermont said...

It is funny how liberals always forget that the Networks called Florida for Gore an hour before the polls in the heavily read panhandle of the state closed.

I read once that Bob Beckel calculated that based on normal voting patterns, that cost Bush over 10K votes.

Oh and who can forget Gore's lawyers cheering every time they got a military ballot rejected?

cubanbob said...

Ann Althouse said...
"How can it be argued that *commerce* means forcing a US citizens to buy something - when it would never be argued that Congress has the power to compel a foreign nation to buy something?"

You're mixing up the definition of the enumerated powers with other affirmative limitations on govt power. The Commerce Clause would include a lot of things that are then excluded by other provisions. For example censoring the press would fit the commerce power, but it's unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The question in this case (the main question) has to do with whether Congress, pursuant to this gigantic effort at regulating the market in health insurance can, as part of its means of achieving this end, require that every individual participate in the market.

There are all these nonbuyers who don't have big expenses yet, and they stay out of the insurance pool because that makes economic sense for them individually. That makes the insurance very expensive, of course. Imagine what auto insurance would be if only the accident-prone drivers wanted to buy it. You have to get everyone in to make it affordable.

3/19/12 2:14 PM

Imagine how much cheaper auto insurance would be if everyone were required to buy auto insurance and not just vehicle owners and licensed drivers. Far more people drive every day than require medical attention on any given day.

The question about Obamacare is does Congress in its pursuit of what it believes to be a public good can use the necessary and proper requirements clause to trump enumerated rights?

David said...

Robert Cook:

The kind of "smart" I think is overrated is the Smartest Guy in the Room Businessman/High Glitter Academic Credentials Academic kind of smart. The I'm Smarter Than All The Test Smart. Think Enron, Bob McNamara and his cohort, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, Robert Moses. You might put Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger on such a list. The point is that being highly quick and clever does not prevent copious and often disastrous mistakes which more cautious and less arrogant people would avoid. Most of the world is run by people who did not score in the top 1% on the SATs and whose IQ is not over 140. They tend to do quite well.

Ann Althouse said...

"'Please read the article I linked to. There was a statewide recount of the undervotes as requested by Gore. Gore lost by much more than he lost by in the original machine count.' Stop spreading this myth! Professor, Why are you ducking my question? The article to which you linked is an analysis of the undervote ONLY. But the Florida Supreme Court mandated a manual count of both undervotes and overvotes. Therefore the link does not support your claim that if Bush v. Gore "had gone the other way Gore would still have lost in the end." Professor, this is a rare case where you are guilty of sloppy blogging. Please correct your error. Thank you."

Oh, bullshit.

1. I said undervote, so don't say I'm inaccurate. I know there was an overvote scenario which was NOT ON THE TABLE where Gore had a shot.

2. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount, statewide, of THE UNDERVOTE. If the US Supreme Court had not intervened, it would have been a recount of the UNDERVOTE.

4. If you don't believe me, read the opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

From the opinion:

"The [Florida Supreme] court... held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation... The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”)."

5. Obviously, the US Supreme Court's "interference" only prevented a recount that would have confirmed that Bush had more votes.

6. To repeat: You. Are. Wrong.

7. Gore lost. Get used to it!

george said...

Whether Gore would have won the recount would have depended on who conducted it as much or more than what the ballots showed. Had it been people with the same standards and morals as the East Anglican CRU crew then he might well have been president. At least he learned that much when he moved on to his next venture.

Fen said...

Whether Gore would have won the recount would have depended on who conducted it as much or more than what the ballots showed.

And what standards were used that day.

People forget that on days when Gore-leaning counties were hand counted, the hanging chad standards were relaxed.

sunsong said...

Professor,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the substance:

The question in this case (the main question) has to do with whether Congress, pursuant to this gigantic effort at regulating the market in health insurance can, as part of its means of achieving this end, require that every individual participate in the market.

I like the way you present this. I may get too *detailed* in how I look at things in that I thnk of *commerce* as something one goes to the market to do - not *as* the market.

Thanks also to bgates! I appreciate your fascinating post and your understanding of what I was wondering...

I am still curious as to *why* it seems reasonable to so many that the word *commerce* would have different meanings dependning on who it is applied to - since it is only used once in one sentence. In other words, as I read it, Congress has the power to regulate the commerce that may occur with foreign Nations and with the several States - and that that *commerce* would have the same meaning in both instances. Hope that makes sense.

Perhaps the answer is because the Supreme Court says so.

Crimso said...

Suppose the govt can force you to buy health insurance because inactivity (not buying the insurance) affects the market. Not having children greatly affects the heavily demographic-dependent entitlement programs. As Mark Steyn put it, the problem with Greece isn't that they're running out of other people's money; it's that they're running out of other people. That inactivity concept can be a real bitch. Let's run with it! What could possibly go wrong?

roesch/voltaire said...

I think Mike Thomas's recent blog covers all aspects of case well and in detail and he concludes:
I should add that the Sentinel came out with its own analysis later on. Here is the conclusion. So Gore would have won or Bush would have won. The best advice came from Gore. Get over it."
Not quite just a matter of the under votes, but more a flawed chapter in American history that has myth makers on both sides.

Fen said...

Yes, that's it roesch. Retreat behind the Tu quoque and pretend the Left didn't get busted trying to steal the 2000 election.

Kelly said...

It's scary how many Democrats not only don't know that the recount would have gone to Bush, but have absolutely no idea what's in the Supremes' decision.

Basil said...

Professor, not "everyone" is required to by car insurance and none are required to do so by the federal government. Only drivers on public roads are required to have insurance and only states (you know, the places you can move from if you don't like it and still live in America) mandates car insurance. Also, it's not insurance that's required, it's evidence of financial ability to pay, which usually takes the form of insurance. SIGH!

RichardS said...

Do I remember correctly that there was a potential train wreck scenerio where the Florida legislature certified one person the winner and the Florida Courts certified another?

I recall that the law said the legislature was in charge, and the Florida Court was trying to change that. But it's so long ago that I might not recall the story correctly.

And I'm with those who wonder whether the count would have been as honest when done by the political folks, and/ or tenured civil servants, compared with the consortium.

RichardS said...

Looks like my memory was roughly correct:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

wowgoldbuyat said...

The hottest subject near to the internet arrives methods to purchase Wow Gold with risk-free and quickly delivery. Some individuals after attempted to farm the gold by on their own but gave up at last, merely since it fees lots of your time and energy. probably the most ideal way is just to decide on a desirable website. individuals can purchase affordable Cheap WOW Gold in countless sites now.

Partridge said...

Isn't saying that it "altered" history suggesting that Gore was supposed to win the election in some sortof grander, destiny-type sense? In other words, Gore was the guy who the original history line wanted to win, and the case "altered" that in the same way time travelers might "alter" the original history.

It didn't "alter" history. It shaped it, maybe. Before the case happened there was nothing to "alter."

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
Actually, there were several recount scenarious, and under more than one of them, Gore would have won.


Actually, this is a total lie and you can provide no evidence there is more than 1 such scenario.

kcom said...

Kelo was a pretty important decision from this century. A further march down the road to overweening government.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...

The issue is really less whether it was actually Gore or Bush who won, and more that the Supreme Court inserted itself into the process unnecessarily


"Unnecessarily"

That's funny.

But the FL State Supreme court (which has no, that would be zero, authority under the US constitution to direct election standards) inserting itself by declaring ballots cast as "votes" in 1 county but not another in the same state is not an "Unnecessary" insertion of itself.

You are dumb on a level I can't really articulate.

Jay said...

roesch/voltaire said...
Althouse should stop spreading the myth-- this from a Jan. 11th story in the Orlando Sentinel:
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Gore might have won


Um, you understand that "might have won" is not that same as the fact that Bush got more votes based on the standards being followed, right?

Hoosier Daddy said...

History would have been altered if Gore could have carried his own state.

Christ even Mondale won his.

jeff said...

The idea is that the Supreme court should have butted out and let the Florida Supreme court rewrite the election rules. Then count the votes based not just on the actual vote, but on the "intent" of the voter based on who they voted for in other races on that ballot. So by interpreting votes in Gore counties then there was a excellent chance Gore would have won. And that's why the Democrats are upset.

TomB said...

Another myth: Gore smart, Bush dumb.

Gore undergrad GPA at Harvard: 2.2
Bush undergrad GPA at Yale: 2.35

Yes, yes, I know there is a lot more to intelligence than GPA. Buts its a heck of a lot more accurate than having opinion columnists just say Gore is smarter, or the sheer number of cartoonists who would depict Bush as stupid and/or a chimp.

rjschwarz said...

There is a chance that a Gore Presidency might have resulted in green-lighting a lot of nuclear power plants in the aftermath of 9/11. W. was an oil guy, he was unlikely to do it and Gore had the environmental cred to have pulled it off against his environmentalist buddies. Plentiful nuclear power would have been helpful in a number of ways.

Yes that's only a chance. He might very well have made Richard Gere the head of Homeland security for all we know.

SGT Ted said...

B v G is only important to lefties who cannot let go. We still read contemporary postings on news sites about the "stolen election" and "selected, not elected."

It is now part of teh Narrative. I have a friend, a very intelligent science fiction writer. We were pals in High School. I've shown him the recounts done by the news organizations that show Bush would have won anyway. He doesn't care. His mind is made up. He is a Progressive. "Stolen election" is one of the articles of his political faith. Facts won't move him on any issue that he holds dear, like Govt Health care. He cannot grasp that there's not enough money to cover everybody. He thinks theres a civil right to a doctor, like the right to an attorney.

Michael said...

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Gore might have won"

So... if you take all possible scenarios, you can find one where Gore would have won, therefore, the election was stolen.

Fen said...

Noonan had an excellent piece on this. Her writing has been disappointing of late, but she was spot on back then.

The Greenwood Position, Nov 12th 2000

Some snips:

"The Florida secretary of state, a Republican elected official, calls a halt. She notes that hand counts are called only when there have been charges of broken machines or vote fraud. Fraud and breakdown were not charged, and did not in fact occur. She says she will certify the election's outcome based on the original vote count and the recount that followed, plus overseas absentee ballots."


"...In the most shameful and painful act of the hand counts, the Democrats on the ground, and their operators from the Democratic National Committee and the state organization and the Gore campaign, deliberately and systematically scrutinized for challenge every military absentee ballot, and knocked out as many as they could on whatever technicality they could find or even invent."

[...]

Its also interesting to read how Katherine Harris was attacked for her looks by the same MSM thats clutching its pearls over the conservative "war on womyn"

Hecla Ma said...

It's astonishing to me that some people are still talking about "disenfranchised Florida voters" while completely forgetting that many in the Panhandle (and further Westward in the nation) did not vote because they thought it was "over" when Dan Rather CALLED FLORIDA FOR GORE before the polls had even closed. Always amazes me that people don't remember that.

Andy Freeman said...

> There are all these nonbuyers who don't have big expenses yet, and they stay out of the insurance pool because that makes economic sense for them individually. That makes the insurance very expensive, of course. Imagine what auto insurance would be if only the accident-prone drivers wanted to buy it. You have to get everyone in to make it affordable.

You don't understand how insurance works. In fact, auto insurance doesn't work that way.

Auto insurance companies (want to) charge each person what they expect to pay out for that person, regardless of what other people pay.

That's because they'll lose customers who they charge more to a company that charges closer to "expected payout". And, they certainly don't want any unprofitable customers.

The goal of insurance is not to "make it affordable" - the goal is to reduce variance, for folks to be able to pay their expected costs, not their actual costs. This is valuable when the variance is large.

Partridge said...

If you think the Florida Supreme Court had no reason to butt itself into a national presidential election, you're just plain wrong. Most people have forgotten but we do not directly elect our presidents. They are elected by an electoral college, and how the electoral college is elected and electoral votes appointed is entirely dependent on state constitutional law.

Now as for the Equal Protection argument or whatever it was... that may be a different matter. But saying the issue wasn't a matter of importance for the state is totally misunderstanding our system.

We should remember this. He's the President of the United States, not the President of the United States. Forgetting this is the biggest problem we have in government today.

Robert Cook said...

"It's astonishing to me that some people are still talking about ;disenfranchised Florida voters' while completely forgetting that many in the Panhandle (and further Westward in the nation) did not vote because they thought it was 'over' when Dan Rather CALLED FLORIDA FOR GORE before the polls had even closed. Always amazes me that people don't remember that."

Voters who decide not to vote while the polls are still open are dopes and have only themselves to blame, despite any predictions or pronouncements they may hear on the news about who has won. While the polls are open, one has to assume there can be no accurate assessment of the winner.

However, the disenfranchised voters--who tried to vote but were prevented--were the victims of skullduggery by Kathleen Harris and her minions.

Roger J. said...

Interesting conclusion Mr Cook--at least you didnt stoop to critizing Ms Harris on her looks, like the rest of your lefties did. Misogyny for thee but not for me.

Roger J. said...

You do understand, Mr Cook, that the state of Florida vests voting oversight to the counties, all 67 of them. Ms Harris' responsibility was to validate the results. Please tell me how Ms Harris, and her minions, disrupted local county voting rules.

submandave said...

"Imagine what auto insurance would be if only the accident-prone drivers wanted to buy it."

Prof, I hate the auto insurance analogy because it is too trite by half and largely irrelevant. Mandates (by the State, incidentally) to buy auto liability insurance are not for the protection of the insured, but for the protection of the poor soul the insured just plowed into. Note that there is no requirement for the individual to purchase collision or comprehensive coverage, unless required by the lein holder (again, not for the protection of the insured, but to protect the collateral of the loan).

When I choose to purchase collision or comprehensive coverage (or health insurance), however, I do so to protect myself from the potential financial impact of an unforseen event. One might make the argument that parents should be compelled to provide their dependent children with health insurance, since the child in unable make the decision to do so for themself.

Robert Cook said...

From Wikipedia:

"Purge of voters

"Harris has been criticized for what a New York Times editorial called 'Katherine Harris's massive purge of eligible voters in Florida.'[15] Harris, along with state division of elections director Clay Roberts, and Governor Jeb Bush used an inaccurate ineligible-voter list that eliminated a disproportionate number of non-felon African Americans from Florida voter rolls. According to journalist Jake Tapper, the problem went uncorrected for two years despite the warnings and complaints of elections supervisor Ion Sancho, and affected the 2000 presidential election.[16]"


In addition, I'm assuming--and it's purely my assumption--that minions of Harris were responsible for misdirecting other black voters in Florida to incorrect polling places.

Hoosier Daddy said...

One of my goals in life is to have minions.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
From Wikipedia:

"Purge of voters


Hysterical.

According to a journalist who is quoted on Wikipedia, no less!


Oh, and this was fun reading:

Although the study was born in the wake of the Florida recounts, it finds that the voting and vote-counting problems in Florida were not the worst in the country. Illinois, South Carolina, Idaho, Wyoming and Georgia all had higher rates of spoiled, unmarked or uncounted ballots in the 2000 presidential election. Some cities, including Chicago and New York, had rates of unmarked, uncounted and spoiled ballots well in excess of the state of Florida.


You are a dupe.

Special Forces Alpha Geek said...

@Partridge - that's not at all true, and I say that as a pretty extreme federalist.

The selection of electors is governed by Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution - Electors are chosen "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."

The Florida Legislature could have, sua sponte, substituted a tiddlywinks contest for the results of the popular vote, and its not at all clear that the Florida courts would have had the authority to intervene.

The US Constitution empowers the current legislature of a state to select Electors in any manner that seems fitting to them. I don't think there's a convincing argument that state law (previous legislatures can't bind the current legislature) or even a state constitutional provision trumps the state legislature's authority to appoint electors under the provisions of the US constitution.

In fact, I wish Bush v Gore had been decided on that basis - the legislature had appointed the electors for the state based on their clear authority under the US Constitution, and that should have been it.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
From Wikipedia:

"Purge of voters

"Harris has been criticized for what a New York Times editorial called 'Katherine Harris's massive purge of eligible voters in Florida.'[15]


Except Katherine Harris did not "purge" anyone since she did not have the authority to determine who is on a voter registration list.

County election officals did.

You dupe.

RichardS said...

"How the electoral college is elected and electoral votes appointed is entirely dependent on state constitutional law." What's your evidence that this is a constitutional rather than a legislative matter. Historically it was the legislative branch's choice. Hence in the election of 1800 the New York legislature decided to make the state winner take all--a plan that backfired on the Federalists. When and how did it change? Or are there specific provisions in the Florida constitution that say it's the Court's job?

Special Forces Alpha Geek said...

@Jay

Hey, c'mon, Robert said it was true because he read that Wikipedia said it was true because the NYT said it was true, so it must be true.

Talk about an unbroken chain of unbiased sources...

Robert Cook said...

"Katherine Harris did not 'purge' anyone since she did not have the authority to determine who is on a voter registration list.

'County election officals did."


Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

The whole article is enlightening, but here is a passage regarding Ms. Harris:

"Pre-election cleansing

"Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state, Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, distributed the scrub lists produced by the cleansing process to counties and ordered the 57,700 people identified as "ex-felons" to be removed from voter rolls. Together the lists comprised nearly 1% of Florida's electorate and nearly 3% of its African-American voters.[citation needed]

"At the time of the election, the purge list contained a number of false positives — people identified as felons who were not actually felons."

WildWillyC said...

I love the back-and-forth on this blog, even when one side is grasping at straws. "I have not yet begun to grasp reality...!"

As a previous commenter pointed out, all Gore needed to do was win his own home state (11 electoral votes), or even Clinton's home state of Arkansas (11 also, I think). The Florida "recount" was a last-ditch ploy to salvage an election he had already lost, since none of his campaign's scenarios had included Florida in Gore's column. (Remember that JEB Bush was Governor of Florida then.)

If you want a truly "stolen" election, look at Kennedy-Nixon, 1960. Although the popular vote was extremely close, Kennedy's electoral-vote margin was fairly impressive thanks to "victories" in two states: Illinois (Mayor Daley's machine) and Texas (LBJ's home state). The Texas vote margin was extremely thin (50.2%) which was one of several reasons that JFK was considering dumping Johnson prior to the 1964 campaign. For you history buffs, there's a reason we called him "Landslide Lyndon" for all those years.

Fen said...

Sidebets that Cook is editing Wiki before he links to it as an authority? Ha.

Really Robert, Wikipedia?

What's next? MediaMatters?

Mary Mapes?

Fen said...

Hoosier Daddy: One of my goals in life is to have minions.

I have them. They're very high maintenance. Want one?

Robert Cook said...

Fen,

Can you dispute the information in the Wikipedia summary?

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...

Nope.

The whole article is enlightening, but here is a passage regarding Ms. Harris:


You don't get it.

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. Note: .[citation needed] goes right by you.


Let me direct you to the real information Some county election supervisors have said they are reluctant to use the state's list to purge the names of any voters. The law leaves that responsibility to the county officials, but it is unclear how many will use it.


Thanks for participating.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
Fen,

Can you dispute the information in the Wikipedia summary?


Yes.

You are wholly ignorant of how elections actually work.

In your pea brain, the Secretary of State orders other government entities to do things and they do.

And you like read all about it on Wikipedia.

Again:
On Friday, the Miami Herald reported that after researching voter records in 12 Florida counties — but primarily in Palm Beach and Duval counties, which didn’t use the file — it found that more than 445 felons had apparently cast ballots in the presidential election.


You see, you are just too dumb to understand the file in question was guidance.


Again, you are just a useful idiot.

Robert Cook said...

Jay,

Your typical bluster notwithstanding, you have not shown that the information in the Wikipedia article is incorrect.

Revenant said...

Your typical bluster notwithstanding, you have not shown that the information in the Wikipedia article is incorrect.

All he really needed to do was point to the "[citation needed]. An unsubstantiated claim in Wikipedia is no better than an unsubstantiated claim in a blog comment.

In any event, all the Wikipedia quote claims is that "a number" of non-felons were on the list. Your claim was that "a disproportionate number of non-felon African Americans" were eliminated is not supported by the Wikipedia article. Indeed, the Wikipedia article doesn't actually state that ANY African-Americans were wrongly eliminated -- just that "a number" of voters were wrongly struck.

Based on the evidence you have offered thus far, it could be that every one of the wrongly-struck voters was a white Republican. You are, of course, welcome to offer evidence that actually supports your claims.

Sigivald said...

Sunsong: More importantly, the Commerce Clause says "commerce among the several states".

Not within them.

The idea that "anything that affects commerce between the states" is a necessary and proper thing to regulate in order to regulate the actual interstate commerce that power is granted over is utter and complete bollocks.

It turns a very limited grant of power, that has an entirely interstate or inter-nation context, into an effectively [post Raich, let alone Wickard] unlimited grant of it over things that are not even commerce.

It's the utter shame of the Supreme Court that it's come to that.)

Milhouse said...

You're making a fundamental error here. Yes, when the media counted the votes the way Gore wanted them counted, Bush turned out to have more of them. But had the case gone the other way, and the recount had proceeded, do you honestly believe that Bush would still have won? I have little doubt that Gore would have won the recount, the same way Gregoire won in Washington in 2004. Enough votes would have been found or altered to make the difference. That's why he only wanted the votes recounted in the counties controlled by Democrats.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
Jay,

Your typical bluster notwithstanding, you have not shown that the information in the Wikipedia article is incorrect.


Um, your premise - which is Katherine Harris ordered the scrubbing of voter registration lists - is false.

Entirely false.

So this claim:

Purge of voters

"Harris has been criticized for what a New York Times editorial called 'Katherine Harris's massive purge of eligible voters in Florida.'


Is false. Katherine Harris purged no voters. She has no authority to purge voters.

That is clear in the links I provided you, you stupid shit ape.

You pretending that isn't true doesn't make it any less true.