Big line forming to count the Florida ballots. What horrors will be found? What if an ABCNews comes out with legitimate basis for believing their count of the said vote, and it shows Al Gore in fact won?

Can you see where this is going? Who really thinks this is over? Look the USSC f*cked up bigtime(3 of their own even agree). They have allowed a vote uncounted to stand. They have overruled the majority who voted for Al Gore. Some of THE PEOPLE now will do what their institutions will not, count their vote.

Sorry, the vote has to be counted and will. Expect Rush and the turds to call for them ballots to be filed next to the JFK papers. Expect GW to once again whine his way to the USSC for relief.

Sad truth in all this maybe the real truth that GW DID freaking win outright. But who really knows without a REAL count?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 14, 2000

Answers

Doc, you need to get over this distructive little meme! The votes HAVE been counted, twice, some even three times.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 14, 2000.

Doc,

You do indeed seem to be suffering from a meme of sorts.

But if you insist on counting the votes, maybe the six other states where the undervotes/novotes that could change the outcome of those states should be counted as well.

ROTFLMAO meme indeed Unk.

-- (BWA@HA.HA), December 14, 2000.

Under which standards will these votes be counted and who will be doing the counting?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 14, 2000.

It seems to me that any count done by ABC, Jesse Jackson, or any other third party would be even more unreliable than the ones done by the canvassing boards.

And Doc, what about the 2.5 million or so other under/over ballots across the country? Gore's lead in the popular vote is only 0.3%. Whose to say Bush wouldn't win if those votes were somehow able to be counted?

I believe that the SCOTUS did not f*ck up. If you read the entire opinion, there is a section there where they outline how two counties (I think it said) did it right when they hand-counted ALL votes, not just undervotes. Also, they made the point that over-votes should be counted as well.

Basically, they didn't say not to recount. They said that there is not time to recount in a constitutional way given the deadlines set by the same constitution.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), December 14, 2000.

A waste of Democrat time and money. Also will make you guys look petty. And the Repubs will easily refute any recount as being biased. Best to accept that one power play squeezed by another power play.

On with the game!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 14, 2000.

But who really knows without a REAL count?

How many times do they need to be counted before it is a REAL count?

ALL votes were counted TWICE by machine. In democraticly controlled areas there was opportunity to hand count a third time.

You've been sucked into the Gore line of crap, 'count the votes' mantra. Duh! They were counted...he just didn't like the results.

Before you start with more of that dimpled/pregnant chad BS again, keep in mind Florida, unlike Texas has/had NOTHING on the books as an approved method of counting them in that state. No approved method meant every county involved in the recount used a different method of counting chads, prenant or otherwise, when they were counted.

GET OVER IT! The election is O V E R.

Get counciling if necessary! I can see it now, shrinks opening up storefront offices all across the country treating Post Election Stress Trama. Soon, Democrats being treated for the disorder come to be known as PEST's!

In the meantime, buy more kleenex and deal with it!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 14, 2000.

Doc asks what happens when the votes are really counted. Well the votes have been really counted repeatedly. So I guess the answer is Bush wins.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), December 14, 2000.

- stop the presses (repubs@are.criminals)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I wanna recount! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I wanna another recount! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

-- It Did Happen! WE WON U LOST! (Right Here Right@now.com), December 14, 2000.

A waste of Democrat time and money.

Lars, FWIW, I heard on CNN that the Miami Herald was requesting to count the ballots.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), December 14, 2000.

Al Gore is my president not Dee Dubya Eye

-- Ain't my president (nothere@not.really), December 14, 2000.

Hey, quit picking on Doc.

The black helicopters have been beaming subliminal messages into his brain so he's not responsible for what he's saying right now.

-- nonehere (none@to.give.net), December 14, 2000.

maybe cpr can give hime remedial reading lessons.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), December 14, 2000.

(Shouldn't that be "subliminable" messages?)

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 14, 2000.

As one who followed Doc and Patricia’s activities for many months on the debunker site, I am shocked to find out that Doc is leaning so far left in his politics. He always seemed to be a bastion of reasonable thought and action so it is shocking to discover how mentally unbalanced he truly is. Stephen, you have become a foolish doomer yourself….hope it’s not contagious.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 14, 2000.

Just checking in here between "injections" for my paranoia(rolflmao). Barry yours has been best sir! Like I never heard I was a sick nut for two years or anything before. Hell I gots death threats too boot! And the reaaalll scary part is, I was freaking 100% dead-on certifiablly correct on Y2k, scary ain't it?

Anyhow do check in all memes. Respond later once the noise subsides.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 14, 2000.

Doc, not only were you 100% correct on Y2K, you may have been responsible for the ‘conversion’ of many doomers. I remember you as a thoughtful wordsmith who brought a levelheaded approach to the table, where most were falling off the edge. Now, it seems that you have succumbed to the very hysteria that was so under your control. It may surprise you to know that I have voted the democratic ticket more than once in my lifetime and I actually think Al Gore is basically a good person. I just want my country to be run by some different elements than those currently in power. I certainly don’t expect to alter your present position but you seem to be way out there on this one. President-elect Bush will surprise many people with his proven ability to attract good people, work well with the opposition, and create an energized atmosphere where good things happen.

Yes, this was a close election and yes the entire process needs to be modernized to avoid a repeat of the past 35 days. The man you support so fervently gave the speech of a lifetime last night and started the healing process that this country so dearly needs. Why not join in?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 14, 2000.

Doc, why didn't you debunk Barry's inference that you are Stephen? Is it because you are him? You're like leading a double life, complete with two political phylosophies?

Now that's cool, way cool.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 14, 2000.

Hey, we had 5 different counts, all for Bush but all close. I'm sure if someone were willing to try, they could come up with a count for Gore as well, also close. And I'm sure whoever does so will claim their count is the "real" count.

But many here are completely correct. Every single ballot was counted AT LEAST twice. NO votes went uncounted. Some didn't register a vote for President, some registered 2 or more, but these were all counted for what they were. The claim that they must have been counted wrong because the wrong guy won is a statement of faith. A 6th total reversing the outcome is a frankly partisan effort, but someone may do it anyway.

I believe Doc Droolie is a sore loser. I'd be sure, if he were coherent enough so we could parse his caterwauling reliably.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 14, 2000.

Doc, why didn't you debunk Barry's inference that you are Stephen?

His name is Stephen.

-- (look@it.up), December 14, 2000.

Not Poole however.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 14, 2000.

Oh. OK.

I've never met the man, nor have I seen his real name used before. Forgive my confusion.

Hey Barry, while you are at it, maybe you could tell us all wassup wit the fannybubbles thing?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 14, 2000.

No,No, ain't goin' there.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 14, 2000.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I wanna recount! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I wanna another recount! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I love the photo, it's the official presidential seal of the "demoncractic" party!

-- bardou (bardou@balonneyyy.com), December 14, 2000.

I'll tell you what will happen when all the votes are counted again, Bush will still be our president, Gore will loes again. Don't blame Gores loss on the USSC it was Gore own fault. If he would have just let Kathrine Harris certifiy the first result he could have started the contest period fifteen days earlier, but instead he protested and in the end he fucked himself.

-- Bosco (Bush@whitehouse.com), December 15, 2000.

My hope in all this mess is 2 major items, myths, misconceptions can be once and for all put to rest. Doubtful for most, but maybe a few will learn.

One::The notion(meme)the Republicans stand for State Sovereignty, the "Republic". That they are the defenders of individual rights against the big bad Feds.

Well this little Florida experience pulled the curtain away and these Republicans were standing butt naked whining their case to a Federal Court. They didn't like the way Florida was running their 12th Amendment mandate. They did not rejoice in the State's sovereignty. No they ran to the Feds for relief.

Two::My hope would be this asinine notion the major media is Liberal will end. The media is run and for Big Business. Long ago these interests decided they wanted a Republican this time. But ultimately it mattered little as their boys are the choice anyhow. Who ever "won" they always win.

I doubt you will see any major news agency doing their own counts. If the "media" was truely the Liberal mouthpeice advertised, do you honestly think this would be so? honestly?

May say it would be impossible to do a count which would be believable. Maybe, and maybe this is true. However, if the liberal claims were true, would this stop them? doubtful but I think it a safe bet we will NOT be seeing any counts by any major media outlet. I think this telling, I think it should lay to rest the misconception the media is controlled by the "liberals", it is not.

Just as a background note...Yes I voted for Al Gore. I did so for a variety of reasons. However my main reason for voting was because Gore had pledged as his first order of business if elected would be to introduce to Congress real campaign finance reform(McCain/Feingold proposal model). Something which now will fade away like the Florida vote.

I also think it day 2 or 3 of this Florida thing I called for an end to the 12th Amendment as it currently is written. A nationwide standardization of the ballots, methods, schedules, and procedures. Yet another item which will fade away and into "locals just tiding up their own broke systems". Jeb Bush is already promising he will correct his mess, lol.

I think it also worth mentioning I think Al Gore while a nice guy, qualified, intelligent and the like, way too much of a Politician for my tastes. His concession speech alone was a monument to butt-kissing if there ever was one. Gore is just too much of an insider of a broke and corrupt leadership. He is one/face of the same party.

I think GW Bush equally the nice guy, intelligent, qualified but like Gore, the puppet of forces which do not have the best interests of this country or its citizens on the front burner.

The candidates we get are two faces of the same rotten nickel. Every four/eight years the "families" change seats. Same faces, same tired broken agendas. Real reforms are paid lip-service. And the business of Global Capitalism is done. Their work is to suck just enough, control just a little more, tweak a tad more, and not kill the patient which are the honest hardworking American Taxpayer and citizen from which these fungus live.

One look at GW's cabinet and it is clear who WON, they do as they always do since they control the damn thing from the get-go. Clear now the folks from say, Planned Parenthood were right, they have this thing locked all the way to the USSC now. This was my great delusion. Stupid too, knowing that we now have several decades of appointed jokers from the Globalists sitting there.

GW has the standard faces, the boys and girls from the skull and bones, CFR lists who come from the globalist factories of Harvard and Yale. Dick Cheney-Condelezza Rice are no random players, they are standard faces.

Beyond a little more coin in your pocket. Maybe a bit more flag in your eyes, truth is America, will continue its slide into mediocrity.

More of what you buy will come from China. More of what you eat from Mexico. Quality will decline further.

ARod is not worth what he is. Most start-up .com folks have not done anything worth making them millionaires beyond work a corrupt system. CEOs are not worth 100 times the frontline worker.

Many things wrong. Saving grace in all of this is are the good folks of this country. We need changes. I think the start is to define the problems and expose the scumballs behind them. This alone a major step forward.

I pound the Republicans for one reason basically. They are as corrupt and as slimy as the Democrats are. Sadly few really understand this. Most understand the failings of the "Liberals",,,Democrats and their scoialist hand-out etc etc agendas. Few however are clear to the extent of the game going on here, and it is a game.

The game is division. If they cannot unite behind a common enemy, they use the next best thing in the Power-Elites toolbox, division. Game is control. They have produced a country more divided now then I can ever recall. This is good for them. While the people bicker, they suck, it is that simple.

So forgive me for asking the tough questions. Few are asking.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 15, 2000.

Standard faces:

Yep. Was reading the paper yesterday regarding likely choices for cabinet positions and it seemed like nearly every one of these folks served under daddy.

One question. Can't Dubya find his own friends?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 15, 2000.

They didn't like the way Florida was running their 12th Amendment mandate. They did not rejoice in the State's sovereignty. No they ran to the Feds for relief.

Well when the kangaroo court makes law, who should stop them? Maybe now the FL legislature will do something about those FL justices.

I doubt you will see any major news agency doing their own counts. Huh? It's not a journalist's job to count votes! Honestly, Doc where is your head?

I think it should lay to rest the misconception the media is controlled by the "liberals", it is not. I don't see the connection. How do you conclude that since the media will not count the votes, then it shows that they are indeed not liberal? Or if the media were liberal, then they would do recounts.

And the business of Global Capitalism is done. Lol, the down with business meme!

More of what you buy will come from China. More of what you eat from Mexico. Quality will decline further. Because Bush is in office?

CEOs are not worth 100 times the frontline worker. Why not? Have you ever tried to start your own business? If CEOs should be worth the same as the frontline worker, than anybody could become CEO. How many businesses fail each year? Lots. CEOs have a tough job and they shouldn't be compensated for it?

I pound the Republicans for one reason basically. They are as corrupt and as slimy as the Democrats Then you should also pound the dems as well and you don't. You excused Clinton for his perjury.

The game is division... Game is control. Nice little soap box!

So forgive me for asking the tough questions. Few are asking. Sorry, Doc you really aren't asking any tough questions, you're not asking any questions at all, just venting. That's OK but just recognize it for what it is.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 15, 2000.

Doc, where did you manage to acquire all of these dark secrets and privileged information about the inner workings of our political structure? I doubt that scurrying around in the Nevada desert has given you any ‘special’ insight so please sir, tell us how you have this knowledge that we all seek. Your transformation from respected thinker to delusional lunatic has been most swift. Most curious.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 15, 2000.

Barry, the lovely Patricia has poisoned his mind with scurrilous New Yawkism.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 15, 2000.

Maria, "why would a news agency do a recount?" Gee maybe cause it would draw an audience. Sorry, I do not have time to further respond to the dim-bulb Maria.

Forget your meds this morning Lars?

Barry, I think what you are witnessing is within yourself if I maybe so bold. If you simply go to my website and poke around, I am the same obnoxious a-hole now I was then. Was saying the same things then. Maybe not as often but it is there.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 15, 2000.

Lars?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 15, 2000.

OK Doc, can you see my white flag waving? Besides, I remember when you, AR, and myself made a fairly good team. Fresh start.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 15, 2000.

As David Corn writes in this week’s The Nation, an analysis of 
Florida’s voting machines found that older, punch-card machines 
tallied no vote for president on 1.5 percent of ballots, while newer, 
optical-scanning machines showed no presidential vote on only 0.3 
percent. 



Now add the fact that those older, more error-ridden machines were 
assigned to low-income and African-American, Democratic precincts. 



That means, Corn concludes, a statistically significant slice of the 
Florida electorate was disenfranchised by voting technologically 
alone. And he’s right. In a state where George Bush won by only .008 
percent of the vote, up-to-date voting machines may have produced a 
different winner. 

(cut & pasted from today's CNN web site)

I wonder, and I have my suspicions but can't conclude from the posts here, are the ex Y2K doomers and pollies split on this issue along the same lines they were in the Y2K debate? Do all doomers fall to one side and all pollies to the other, or is there a new allignment of opinion?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 15, 2000.

Patricia and DP--

I am certified by the mayor of Paterson, NJ to make jokes about NYC. Nothing personal,

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 15, 2000.

Bemused:

There seems to be no relationship that I can see. Ken Decker, Stephen Poole and I tend to prefer the conservatives, while I'm sad to report that Patricia, No Spam and Paul Davis have been brainwashed by the Dark Side and abandoned their former critical faculties.

I've never been convinced that CPR or Doc Paulie ever HAD any critical faculties, but I note that they continue to rant from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Brian McLaughlin and Uncle Deedah moderated their y2k expectations rather late in the game, and they are also split politically. If there are any former doomers around, they now use different handles, all anonymous. The anonymous handle people also seem split pretty evenly.

By the way, I agree with David Corn's theory, that if optical methods had been used statewide, Gore would have won, albeit narrowly. However, I prefer to believe in that case, Bush would have conceded gracefully, rather than un-conceding and trying to cherry-pick a few selected pro-Bush counties controlled by Republicans, to perform a customized vote interpretation in the hopes of convincing the public that anything else would be "unfair" because the votes "were never counted."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 15, 2000.

Your transformation from respected thinker to delusional lunatic has been most swift.

If Doc is a delusional lunatic, Barry, then so are four members of the U.S. Supreme Court...

-- Calm (centered@nd.aware), December 15, 2000.

No argument here!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 16, 2000.

Flint wrote, "If there are any former doomers around, they now use different handles, all anonymous."

As an anonymous with a different handle, it is within my experience to comment on this remark. I am not a former doomer. Nor, for that matter, am I a former polly. Just an avid reader and sometime participant in this whacky forum. Now in its 3rd incarnation (or 4th if you count EaZy, heaven forfend!), this forum, and its companion debunking forums, has always been one of the hottest, most entertaining sites on the net. And, I have loved you one and all...from Andy Ray to Andy the Goldbug. You're a helluva crowd! I miss cpr as much as I miss Paul Milne. Buncha loonies, the lot of you. The world is just a little darker each time one of you drops off the screen.

I don't believe there will ever be another event on the internet like the year of Y2K. This historical presidential election doesn't hold a candle to the passions, polarizations, fun and frenzy of Y2K.

-- (yawn@stretch.scratch), December 16, 2000.

Brainwashed?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 16, 2000.

Flint: >> Every single ballot was counted AT LEAST twice.<<

This claim appears to be incorrect. Five Florida counties did not recount ballots on Nov. 8

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004Fop

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 16, 2000.

Yet more evidence Flint's basic input/output(Bios=Bias) system is corrupted. Time to update your CMOS Flint.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 16, 2000.

' Presidential recount starts in south Florida (Dec. 18)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004GPz

-- (also@see.this), December 18, 2000.

Flint,

By the way, I agree with David Corn's theory, that if optical methods 
had been used statewide, Gore would have won, albeit narrowly. 
However, I prefer to believe in that case, Bush would have conceded 
gracefully, rather than un-conceding and trying to cherry-pick a few 
selected pro-Bush counties controlled by Republicans....

Your example would place Bush in a much easier position than Gore found himself in. If optical methods were used and Bush found himself behind, he wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in requesting a recount, and he would know it, so of course he would concede "gracefully" in that situation. So would Gore, or pretty much anyone else. I think the whole point of this thread is that accurate methods like that were not used, and the recount standards clock ran out as far as the USSC was concerned. Keep in mind that the USSC ruling never said an undervote recount should not take place, it merely said that consistant standards could not be put in place in time to complete a recount.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 20, 2000.

Bemused:

Sigh. I do not believe Gore had a leg to stand on as it was. Optical methods are more accurate, but as the courts pointed out, the margin of victory was STILL within the measurement error of optical methods. In other words, the *method* of voting in this case is not relevant. Optical methods have a 0.4% error rate, and the margin of victory was 0.005% so the method doesn't matter.

I believe there should have been no recounts in this particular case. Not by any method, not in any county. I argue that the Gore campaign was not able to demonstrate justifiable cause for a recount. If a known error rate of a voting method is justifiable cause, then ANY loser of a close election can go fishing for favorable interpretation of ambiguous ballots solely on the grounds of a close election.

I argue instead that Gore needed to find a clear irregularity in the voting -- a broken machine, a corrupt official, a bribe, etc. He did not do so. His ONLY claim was that punchcard ballots have a high error rate, and that hand counts of ballots the machines couldn't find a vote for President on would "find" more Gore votes.

The USSC was in a terrible position, IMO. Clearly, the FSC was going to do everything they could to let Gore go fishing for votes, and had fallen all over themselves handing Gore NOT ONLY every vote the USSC had vacated earlier, but every partial count despite a clear law saying partial counts aren't allowed, and THEN told everyone to count like mad without any clear standards. To do so, they had to overrule their own lower court that wisely said fishing for votes without due cause is not proper.

Now, on what LEGAL grounds can the USSC tell the FSC that they had foolishly decided to engage in straight party politics, and that they should let the political system decide elections? After all, the FSC hadn't done anything illegal, just stupid. The FSC's unseemly activism had thrust the courts into the position of picking the President, NO MATTER what the USSC did. If the USSC refused the case, they were saying the FSC gets to pick the President. If they take the case, then THEY are picking the President. The worst possible lose- lose situation.

And as far as I'm concerned, this entire fiasco was precipitated by Gore refusing to accept a close defeat at the hands of an antiquated and unreliable voting system. Once Gore started turning loose his lawyers to do everything in their power to bend the law his way (and I agree the law was very bendable), there could be NOBODY coming out of the process as a legitimate winner.

And I think Bush would have recognized that if you lose the count and lose the recount, you lost the election UNLESS you can find clear failure, mistake, or fraud. You don't try to keep recounting different places by different rules until you come out ahead, knowing the state supreme court will back you. If you go down that road, you are willing to "win" at the expense of the office, the court system, and public opinion, ALL of which will suffer even if you are unsuccessful. The country is split, and you are widening that split. This is plain bad judgment.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 20, 2000.

Simple math:

Optical methods have a 0.4% error rate, and the margin of victory was 0.005% so the method doesn't matter.

Flint-what is the percentage difference between .4%, which I understand to be 4 tenths of one percent, and .005. which I understand to be 5 one-hundreths of one percent?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 20, 2000.

Syd,

Optical methods have a 0.4% error rate, and the margin of victory was 0.005% so the method doesn't matter. Flint-what is the percentage difference between .4%, which I understand to be 4 tenths of one percent, and .005. which I understand to be 5 one-hundreths of one percent?

I think flint's point there is one that's been made before from people on both sides of the issue, and it's one that might bear consideration - that the margin of error here is much greater than the difference in counted votes. This means that it's statistically a tie in Florida.

One of my points, to state it in this context, is that the margin of error can be improved apon a great deal if an effort is made to do so. I think flints' response to that, if I may paraphrase, is "well, even if we could lower the percentage of error with a bipartisan-controlled recount of ballots that didn't count either way the first time, it's not covered by existing rules. And we can't agree on applicable rules now, because we'll refuse to agree. Plus, I think Bush is just a better guy than Gore anyway, so I'll decide that his lawyers make more sense. Sigh."

After becoming something close to a news junkie over the past month, CNN, the pundit shows, CSPAN, Networks, and yes (shudder) the web,) I've come to this very basic summation:

1) The Democrats feel they won the general U.S. election, with a vote count difference greater than the difference between Kennedy- Nixon in 1960. They feel this gives them a bit of a mandate to at least contest the results in Florida.

2) The Democrats feel that they actually won the general election in Florida, if what I call "hidden votes" could be counted.

3) The Republicans feel that the Democrats won the general election in Florida also, if the hidden votes could be counted, but counting these votes are either against the rules, or would have to happen in situations where no standards, or rules, exist. If no standards can be agreed apon before time runs out, the situation as it stands holds, with Bush ahead.

Now, what's needed to ensure Republican victory in the situation above? Legal delaying tactics, expertly executed. Keep the game in a place where you have a political advantage (USSC, Florida Legislature, Kathryn Harris) and away from where you don't (FSC). Spin, spin, spin, to try to keep the media from focusing on the fact that your opponent won the US general election, and as all evidence is starting to suggest, the Florida G.E. also.

The Republicans did all of the above, that's why Bush won the presidency. Note that I didn't say he won the election, but the presidency.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 20, 2000.