Re: [sixties-l] A Very American Coup

Date: 12/15/00

  • Next message: Marty Jezer: "[sixties-l] POWER OVER PRINCIPLE"

    In a message dated 12/15/2000 1:15:52 PM Central Standard Time, 
    > A coup is a coup is a coup. Do you really think Bush won the vote in Florida 
    > and his lawyers were just passionately devoted to abstract legal principles?
    I made no affirmative statements to either of these views.  Bush's lawyers 
    were governed by the same principles that Gore's lawyers were governed 
    by...doing whatever you had to do to get your client the victory and yourself 
    enough publicity to guarantee bigger houses and more Ferraris in your future. 
     Democracy and law be damned.  A campaign lawyer is a campaign lawyer is a 
    campaign lawyer. 
    > Do you really think there wasn't a systematic effort made to disqualify 
    > eligible Black voters?
    That remains to be seen.  What we "think" happened and what actually happened 
    are not always the same thing.  The NAACP is talking about an investigation 
    into the matter and I am hoping that the charges are indeed investigated.  
    Until they are, the accusations are just that...accusations.  Due process 
    applies even to people we may not like, regardless of their political 
    persuasion.  It is worthy of note that accusations of failing to investigate 
    these contentions have been levelled against the current Clinton-appointed 
    Justice Department.  Only time will tell as to what happened.
    > for help and were 
    > turned down by officials - were turned down in the name of a love for rules 
    > ?
    I don't know the answer to that, either.  Maybe you should ask the 
    Democratic-run election boards of the disputed counties for the answer to 
    that question.  Even then, we are still assuming that this is indeed what 
    happened because of persons claiming so AFTER the fact, sometimes hours or 
    days after the fact.  If they were turned down, they should go to court about 
    it.  If any elections officials were guilty of failing to assist those who 
    requested help, they should be removed.  The key word here is IF.  There are 
    a lot of accusations flying around.  We will have to wait and see if they 
    have any bearing in fact.
    > repair Republican 
    > requests for absentee ballots elsewhere?
    We are now dealing with absentee ballots here...not voters-in-person as 
    before, so it is a different subject altogether.  Based on evidence 
    presented, what Republicans did in Seminole and Martin counties was not a 
    breach of the rules.  Granted...I think it was kinda sneaky and stupid on 
    their part, but it was not illegal as the ballots themselves were not 
    tampered with.  What this incident has done however is add another link to 
    the grand conspiracy theme espoused here...but it has done little else.  Even 
    then, based on Gore's mantra of "every vote should count," why should 
    absentee voters have their votes thrown out because of elections officials 
    adding an ID number to the outside label of their ballot without their having 
    anything to do with it?  Would that not be rather unjust based on the 
    standards espoused here and by the Gore campaign?  As for standards and the 
    Bush camp, can lead a governor to office but you can't make him 
    think or hire anyone who does.
    > doesn't kind of feel bad that he lost the national 
    > election by 320,000 votes?
    It's more like 520,000 votes as of tonight, but I doubt he feels bad about 
    it.  Again, it is the electoral votes that count in the end here.  Unfair?  
    Unjust?  Maybe so.  Yet it is the system of the moment.  Need to be changed?  
    Get an amendment passed through Congress and submitted to the states for a 
    vote of the people.  That would be the most democratic way to do it, and it's 
    Constitutional, too.  
    > And do you think that the five Republicans on the Supreme Court - two with 
    > direct ties to the Bush campaign did not know who buttered their bread?
    Hmmmm...buttered bread and direct ties.  I like the metaphor!  However, the 
    argument could be used in reverse as well.  Let's do it for fun!  "And do you 
    think that the four Democrats on the Supreme Court - two with direct ties to 
    the Clinton-Gore administration did not know who buttered their bread?"  
    Yep...just as I thought.  Works just as well that way.  Accusations of 
    partisanship on the Supreme Court look convincing at first unless what we had 
    here was actually a disagreement of legal philosophy rather than blatant 
    partisanship.  It is very difficult to tell the difference sometimes.  It 
    should also be noted that the Court voted 7-2 in declaring that the 
    procedures for the recount as handed down by the Florida Supreme Court were 
    unconstitutional.  The 5-4 decision was on what to do about it.  It seems to 
    me the 7-2 decision is the biggie here...and if so, the partisan argument 
    becomes shaky.  However, it is pretty easy to claim that if one group was 
    partisan, so was the other.  It is a never-ending argument that winds up partisan.  :-)
    >    Some stuff like this did happen in the 19th century - but as for 1960 - 
    > if 
    > the Chicago political machine really determined the outcome of the election 
    > - 
    > why didn't Nixon complain? Please don't tell me it was because of his 
    > selfless patriotism -- Stew Albert
    Nixon and selfless patriotism are two terms that are too oxmoronic to go 
    together.  Why didn't Nixon complain?  Because there was some serious voter 
    irregularities in Republican counties in southern Illinois and other areas as 
    well that would have come to light had he pursued it.  Call it Nixon's one 
    successful cover-up, if you will.  
    My final comments are these.  First of all, Stew, thanks for not taking this 
    discussion personally.  I have great respect for you as an individual and 
    many of your posts to this list have been enlightening and informative.  We 
    just disagree on this matter.  Secondly, I think we would do well to note the 
    phrase that begins each of your questions...that is the inquisitive "do you 
    (really) think."  What we think, while important, is not the final issue 
    here.  What happened IS the issue.  I hope, although I am skeptical, that we 
    will know in the near future.  Unfortunatly, something tells me that when the 
    evidence comes out (if it ever does), few minds will be changed.  Such is the 
    nature of a nation that has become so partisan we cannot see the forest for 
    the trees...or should I say, we cannot see the voter results for the chads.  

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/16/00 EST