Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush v. Gore's Disgrace Deepens (10 Years Later)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 08:52 AM
Original message
Bush v. Gore's Disgrace Deepens (10 Years Later)
by Eric Alterman

The Supreme Court's granting Bush the victory looks even worse today than it did 10 years ago, says Eric Alterman—even if historians weren't debating whether George W. Bush was the worst president ever or just since Grant.

-edit-

The court did not really even try to hide its partisan agenda. It insisted that its decision not be employed as precedent and released it a mere two hours before Florida’s “safe harbor” deadline of Dec. 12, thereby making it impossible for the Gore team to contest. (It would take longer than two hours just to read the decision and its many dissents.) Writing bravely in The Weekly Standard, John DiIulio Jr. warned that “the arguments that ended the battle and ‘gave’ Bush the presidency are constitutionally disingenuous at best. They will come back to haunt conservatives and confuse, if they do not cripple, the principled case for limited government, universal civic deference to legitimate, duly constituted state and local public authority.”

-edit-

All of this might have gone down more easily had the court’s decision turned out to be the correct one, based on the votes themselves. Indeed, almost every journalistic account of the decision has granted that however ugly process may have been, Bush really did deserve to win. David von Drehle, writing in this week’s Time, explains, “An independent research organization examined every last one, and whether Gore or George W. Bush won more of them was never going to be a matter of fact only interpretation. The margin of victory was more than filled with improperly, mistakenly, carelessly or ambiguously marked ballots.” This view, while powerfully representative of the journalistic consensus—“everything in America always turns out OK, somehow”—is, unfortunately, wrong.

When the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, hired by a consortium of eight newspapers to figure out the true winner, issued its final report, the headlines at the time read: “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,” (The New York Times) and “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush” (The Washington Post). But what the NORC researchers really discovered was the Gore legal team’s incredible incompetence.

Gore’s legal advisers chose, it turned out, pretty much the only counting method available that would have lost them the election. Instead of an inclusive recount of Florida’s vote—one that would have been most fair to Florida’s voters, Gore’s top lawyer, David Boies, asked the court to count “undervotes” only. Using that method, Bush did indeed outpoll Gore, and the court’s intervention did not ultimately make a difference. It turned out to be the perfect coda to a perfectly awful campaign.

But buried beneath this colossal error, as I’ve said over and over, was the inescapable fact that Gore was the genuine choice of a plurality of Florida’s voters as well as America’s. As the Associated Press reported in its examination of the NORC report, “In the review of all the state’s disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide.” As I pointed out in my book What Liberal Media?, he beat Bush by almost every conceivable counting standard. Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and he won under a loose-counting scenario. He won if you counted “hanging chads” and he won if you counted “dimpled chads.” He won if you counted a dimpled chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot—the so-called Palm Beach standard. He even won if you counted only a fully punched chad. He won if you counted partially filled oval on an optical scan and he won if you counted only a fully filled optical scan. He won if you fairly counted the absentee ballots. No matter what, if everyone who legally voted in Florida had had a chance to see their vote counted, then Al Gore not George W. Bush, was elected president.

-edit-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-04/bush-v-gore-decision-looks-even-more-disgraceful-10-years-later/?cid=hp:mainpromo7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is why I vehemently opposed Bush from the start
There was a brief moment the morning after Election Day, when my wife told me Bush had won, that I accepted Bush as president. I felt sick, but I also thought, well, that's our process and the voters chose him. I accepted the legitimacy of his presidency even if I didn't agree with him on much of anything.

However, as I learned about the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in Florida, the dirty tricks Bush/Rove pulled there, the fact that Bush's cousin prematurely announced on Fox that Bush won, the "Brooks Bros. riot," etc., I did not accept the legitimacy of Bush's "victory."

The biased Supreme Court decision forever clenched that stance for me.

Bush was never the legitimately elected president of this country. Never. Consequently, I will never even refer to him as "president."

Looking back on that terrible time, I don't know what appalled me more: that Bush stole the election or that the Democrats rolled over and let him do it. I'm not just talking about Party officials, but friends of mine who are Democrats and told me I needed to get over it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. "ever or just since Grant"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. The Republicans stole the election and the Democratic party conceded and have been conceding ever
since. The Republicans get more bold every day and we still have Democrats telling us that half a shit sandwich is better than none. No, that the promise of half a shit sandwich. The repukes can take it back whenever they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. it was the Media's role in the Bush v. Gore decision that really needs to be developed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. I agree, they kept it close enough for Bush to steal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still a Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks, Ralph Nader
None of this happens without you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenman3610 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Thanks, 1500 Democrats who didn't vote
None of this happens without you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Interesting that you choose to blame someone that was part of the legal democratic system. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Why repeat an idiotic lie? It clearly untrue if you bother to research the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still a Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. The undeniable truth is Gore wins if Nader hadn't ran
The closeness of the election set off an unsavory chain of events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. YOU FAIL that's what undeniable.
Gore won whether you count Nader votes or not.

Spin, spin, spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still a Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Okay Gore would have taken office
There's no getting around the fact Bush is part of Ralph's legacy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Only because
people such as yourself target Nader for Bush's appointment with disregard for the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Spot-on observation. +1. The screeching at you is because it is so undeniably true. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. demonstrably false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeremyfive Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. I lost all respect for the Supreme Court on that Day in 2000.
And my disdain has been reenforced time and again since, especially as "corporations" are now "people" according to Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. I'll never forget
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. All we need to do is make this official.
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 10:52 AM by The Backlash Cometh
Because, it didn't matter that his legal team picked the selective incompetent method. He was required by the courts to expand the count to include the entire State. It seemed fair at the time.

Bush v Gore changed the results of the entire election by stopping the recount. They knew how it would end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. Except the last recount ordered by the Florida Supreme court
threw out the Gore team's request and ordered a statewide recount of all the undervotes. No matter what standard for judging ballots is applied, Gore wins.

Certified by Katherine Harris
Gore Deficit or Lead -537

Valid votes found after certification
Gore Gain +59
Gore Deficit or Lead -478

Correctly marked paper ballots
Gore Gain +493
Gore Deficit or Lead +15

Full punches
Gore Gain +100
Gore Deficit or Lead +115

Poorly marked paper ballot
Gore Gain +309
Gore Deficit or Lead +424

3-corner chads
Gore Gain -208
Gore Deficit or Lead +216

2-corner chads
Gore Gain -111
Gore Deficit or Lead +105

1-corner chads
Gore Gain -45
Gore Deficit or Lead +60

Dimples with sunlight
Gore Gain +88
Gore Deficit or Lead +148

Dimples
Gore Gain -41
Gore Deficit or Lead +107

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
morningglory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Bush appointed Supreme Ct. judges? Shitheads +2 n't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. You are SO very correct. Thanks for posting that. I hate the official "story" (lie) now that Bush
would have won under almost every scenario. BULLSHIT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
20. I have a friend who worked on that study. Your last paragraph is the most
important. Under every scenario used, no matter how you count the votes, Gore won!!!!!! trashing his legal team is your interrpreattion of those facts. but those facts are pretty important out there all alone. The people who actually counted the votes had to sign non-dsiclosure agreements. The entire madia had the real results but did not release them!!!!!!

The study was paid for a consortium of news agencies. from AP to the New York Times. They owned the study and the results. THEY COULD HAVE PUBLISHED THE RESULTS! THEY DID NOT. Not one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC